Category Archives: Gay Marriage

Obama’s Short-Sighted Campaign and his Idiotic Stand on Gay Marriage

Obama and his team are running a laughably pathetic campaign.  It’s mildly to be expected, the thrill is gone, and you’d have to be dumber than Joe Biden to want to run on that record.  But still, there are some dumb moments…like

Is Newsweek trying to hurt Obama?…also I think Lincoln actually has right to that title.

claiming the New York Times is biased against Obama…uh-huh.

The latest major misstep is that Obama is now for gay marriage.  Well, kinda (he thinks it’s a state’s rights issues).  Sorta (he’s not going to push for the Defense of Marriage Act to be overturned).

Now before I lay into Obama for how stupid a move this was, let’s make a few things clear.  First, I have no dog in the gay marriage fight.  I think both sides are stupid.  Marriage is a religious institution and should not be in any legal code.  Legal codes should offer civil unions to any two adults that want one.  That would protect the religious institution from government meddling and would give everyone equality under the law….but as of yet it appears the majority of the nation is squabbling over two options, both equally stupid.  Second, you’re a moron’s moron, if you’re voting for or against Romney or Obama for their positions on gay marriage.  Really you’re just about as dumb as it gets. The economy, foreign policy, the size of government, the sacrosanct nature of the Constitution and private property, healthcare reform, immigration reform, all of these are far, far more important whether or not the government issues a piece of paper when two people love each other (yes there are private property issues entangled with the concept of marriage, but last time I checked Romney seems willing to endorse civil unions that cover all those private property rights, and Obama seems viciously opposed to private property rights for straight couples, gay couples, and single people of all orientations).  So for liberals who are voting for Obama because of this stance, you’re idiots.  And for conservatives who are now voting for Romney (after your first choice, the ever psychotic Rick Santorum dropped out) only because he says marriage is between a man and a woman, you’re also idiots.

Okay, that said, let’s deal with the pragmatic realities of this choice.

First off, let’s dismiss this as Obama making a principled choice.  If it was a principled choice, then the pragmatics of how it will affect his reelection wouldn’t be important, but it’s not a principled stand.  As my friend, The Snark Who Hunts Back, points out it’s a little hypocritical for Obama to say that this is a state’s rights issue when he has opposed the 10th Amendment at every turn (healthcare, enforcing federal immigration laws, voter laws, just to name a few).  And the fact that one in six of Obama’s high dollar bundler’s being gay also makes this ring a little hollow.  (And keep in mind it appears he did this to make a mere 60 million dollars…not exactly a high price for a politician).  (The actual number is about $12 million so far but I figure that the long term effect is going to be in the ballpark of $60 million, but I’ll admit this is a guess).

So if this isn’t a principled move, it’s a political one.  And a very dumb one at that.  One of Romney’s remaining problems was with the marginally unstable Santorum supporters who weren’t going to vote for a Mormon who passed gay marriage in Massachusetts. But low and behold Obama just gave this wacky bunch who considers social issues to be more important than those pesky economic and foreign policy issues that might actually have an effect on their lives a big reason to vote against Obama, even if they’re not still utterly thrilled with an economic conservative like Romney.  So what Obama just did there is shore up Romney’s base.  Did it shore up Obama’s base…not really, the people who this might have made a difference for were already going to vote for him.  So Obama gained $60 million and by that probably saved Romney $150 million in ads designed to appeal to the Santorum-voter base and not alienate the middle.

Gosh…how can I best kill my base and help Romney’s?

So instead of wasting all that money, he just had to have a throwaway line at a college graduation and he shored up the all the Santorum voters who were still on the fence.    “But Romney said he believes that marriage is between a man and a women, won’t that offend the middle?”  I doubt it.   While it’s not a 50-48 split in favor of gay marriage  that’s of an “anyone asked” poll, and registered voters are more conservative than “anyone asked” polls, and likely voters are more conservative than registered voters…so of the voting populace it’s probably still against gay marriage.  Further I think that of those 50% who are in favor of gay marriage, a heavy plurality if not a majority, can say, “I understand this is an issue with lots of religious, spiritual and personal values tied into it” and won’t have a knee jerk reaction against Romney who is in favor of civil unions.

This also hurts Obama.  Why?  Well because of those all important African-American and Hispanic votes.  Yes these are voting blocs that tend liberal, but they are also very socially conservative and very against gay marriage.  African-Americans in North Carolina voted 2 to 1 against gay marriage  and it was these two groups that killed gay marriage in California.  So will this mean that they will now vote for Romney?  Not necessarily, but these are two voting blocs with historically low turnout and if you cross them on an issue like this that statistically they’re very impassioned about it creates the distinct possibility that they may just stay home and not vote (which was already a major threat with African-American voters this election cycle, so this is tipping them over the edge to not vote). Overall I would say that this will translate to a around a 1 point advantage to Romney overall.  Not a lot, but let’s remember how many votes decided Florida.  It is a point that Obama couldn’t lose.

Granted there is a bit of guess work here, but I feel comfortable that my analysis is accurate.

So what does this do to the Electoral College?  Most pundits are pointing out that most of the swing states are socially conservative states.  Well, when you figure in the likely voter polls (as I did here), and that this shores up the Romney base and hurts the Obama base, I would say it moves Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota back into the toss up category and will probably give Romney the South.  So my guess is that if we took likely voter polls right now it would be somewhere in the ballpark of Obama 187 electoral votes to Romney’s 248 (meaning Romney would have to win Ohio and one other state, or some combination that leads to 22 votes).

This wasn’t a principled or pragmatic move.

And it gets worse for Obama.

RealClearPolitics has the current Senate battle at 46 Democrat, 46 Republican, 8 toss up.  This will probably move anywhere from 4-6 Senate seats from toss-up to lean Republican as most of those toss-up states are socially conservative.  And it could move 1-2 from leaning Democrat to toss up and 1-2 from likely Democrat to only lean Democrat.  In short Obama, in a tight election for control of the House may have just placed the straw that broke the jackass’ back.

Now you could say I’m reading too much into how this will effect the Senate, and you may be right, but if it convinces some of Obama’s base to stay home, as I think it will, this will hurt the Senate votes, especially in states where Romney is expected to win as Democrats will have even further reason not to go vote.  I’m not saying this move guarantees a 60 vote Republican Senate, but it certainly won’t hurt.  (And this will help the battle for GOP control of the House as well).

Again, if you’re voting against Obama and the Democrats only because of the gay marriage issue you’re an idiot.  But the fact of the matter is that both parties seemed filled with people who prove the rule that “People are Stupid” and right, wrong or indifferent you have to take the actions of these idiots when you’re in a leadership position (screw angelic, if all men were intelligent and rational no government would be needed).   Obama made a very stupid move not for principle but for a short-term gain that will hurt him in the long run.  Ignore what side of the gay marriage debate you’re on, this shows that this man is not a good leader.

The Teleprompter made me do it!

1 Comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Debt, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Illegal Immagration, Illegal Immigration, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics

RAMBLINGS from ConservativeCathy: Real Conservative Values

I was compiling a list of numerous topics (SOPA, Economy, Defense, etc.) and listing what I could find as the most representative statements from both Romney and Santorum.  I was doing this as my research indicates that Romney is more conservative (fiscally, constitutionally) than Santorum.  But as I became more aware that it would be impossible for anyone to logically/rationally say that Santorum (or Gingrich for that matter) was more conservative than Romney (or conservative at all) a light bulb went off in my head.  This is not an issue of just putting facts in front of people it is a problem with word definition.  My son and I often have long debates over what is meant or interpreted by a phrase or word.

The actual definition will not help explain my beliefs so I am presenting my political party platform (would prefer if the Republicans adopted something like this) so when I say conservative you know exactly where I stand.

Below is what I would like to see as a conservative platform that I believe that most groups can get behind.  I would encourage an open rational discussion from others.

This country has direction and a guide in our country that must be followed – The Constitution and Declaration of Independence.  This should be taught in detail in public schools so that all grow up with an understanding of the original intent.  For me the ideal party platform is based on the belief that the Founders meant what they said and it was to be interpreted for areas that they had no knowledge of at the time but not that it is to be interpreted for all new laws people want to see.  That is what amendments are for.

That my party stops using the term “democratic” improperly as we are a democratically elected representative Republic and all should actually understand that concept and why that was chosen.

Once we accept the above premise then we go back to the 1st amendment and follow it where religion is concerned.  All religions are allowed and proper as long as they do no harm to others.  You cannot preach hate inciting violence just like you cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theater.  You can preach any other belief you want.  Let’s deal with the 2 particular issues the Republican Party has taken to heart (unfortunately).

ABORTION.  I do not want to discuss whether or why you support or do not support this.  I again refer you to the Constitution – The government has no right to be involved in this type of decision.  Row v. Wade and how it is being interpreted is not going to be overturned (even by the right wing appointed justices).  The federal government should not and has no authority to fund this type of service – period.  Regardless how I feel about 3rd trimester abortions the federal government does not have the authority to make laws regarding this.  Now I could make a suggestion that an amendment to the Constitution be made regarding how life is determined by scientifically stating when a fetus becomes viable – but I am sure that would cause others to start the debate again.  Back to the Constitution this is your only option as the federal government does not have the right to interfere in the doctor patient relationship and what occurs within that relationship – that would be a state issue.  Socially speaking if parents were actually doing their jobs this might actually affect this discussion.

Now the other big issue GAY PEOPLE.  This is a religious issue and can be discussed within the religion.   I do not consider believing that God is against gays as hate (stupid but not hate – I think Jesus promoted love and I think judgment is God’s purview) as long as your beliefs do not cause action against someone else.  Again this comes back to what I said previously you could believe anything you want as long as you do not harm to anyone else.  Now you can hold things like “Gay Parades” to the same decency standards that exist for other parades.  I think that sex should not be discussed in public schools until (I was going to say High School – my age showing here) Middle School.  This discussion should be biologically based only.  School is not the place to be making judgments one way or the other – except I think that scientifically and biologically schools can state that abstinence is the only 100% workable format.  Again I ask why are parents not doing their job?  I rather like Cris’ format for government only being involved in civil unions and marriage being a religious ceremony. But again this is a states right’s issue unless you all agree on an amendment to the Constitution.  Which I think needs to be done as it is becoming federal when crossing state lines which of course it will.  Maybe we can all agree on the civil union and work from there.

This is a rather long discussion but I also want reiterated here that all government buildings belong to the people so all religious displays should be legal as long as government is not paying for them.  This country is a majority of Christians and so we celebrate Christmas (it is a Federal Holiday), we do celebrate Easter, we also celebrate Halloween, Cinco de Mayo and St. Patrick’s Day.  So it is what it is.  These celebrations do not hurt someone who does not believe in them so get over it as long as your tax dollars are not being used to support any celebration (Chicago is exempt for St. Patrick’s day – such a long tradition).

We really need an amendment for a balanced budget along with an amendment for the budget to be capped.  I think that you can debate how to cap it but once we start following the Constitution the budget will not be as high except that we also need an amendment ensuring that federal deficit takes priority in budgeting plans (meaning it needs to be paid off ).  The only reason that we should ever allow debt again would be for war or maybe you can suggest something I can not think of but it should be pretty great.

We will not be in the business of assisting people as that is a state or local government’s place – except of course all of our military need to receive all of the care that is needed for them and I do mean the BEST of care possible. I really do not think this is the area where cuts are made except for inefficiencies/beauracracies.

Since I am a realist and do not see Social Security being overturned as unconstitutional (as it is) we need to come up with a plan that supports savings accounts/stocks etc.  Pick an age and make it 50 years and older or 45 – I do not care and everyone below will need to continue paying taxes to fulfill the current agreement for that age up to death. For everyone else it from now on it will be a choice – a savings account with your state government, a savings account that you can not access until you retire (whatever age but you can not work anymore – you can invest but not work) or invest in stock market/mutual funds that again are not accessible or any combination of the 3.  This will be totally tax free.  So now citizens are personally responsible for their own lives.

I think we need to actually clarify our economic system so that it cannot change with the wind and have an amendment to the Constitution stating that we are a capitalistic country and believe in unrestricted free trade.  That cronyism eliminated as far as is legally possible and that the rules of capitalism (contract law, property rights, laws against fraud and theft, be considered sacrosanct and inviolable).

We need an amendment to the Constitution stating that every citizen has the right to work and not be forced to join and pay a union.  Also added into that all government positions cannot be unionized.

We need to support minimum standards for all grade levels and have a national test for those standards.  All states can do their own thing with public schools as I propose the Department of Education is eliminated but all students must meet the standards we desire for our citizens.  Keep in mind that I believe that you do not lower standards but always raise them and eventually more people will achieve them.  We need an electorate that understands our government and Constitution, can read to a 12th grade level, do basic math (multiplication tables in their head to 12’s), know how to count money without a machine, understand basic English grammar and how to write at a 12th grade level, need to understand the actual history of our country and a general understanding of world history – particularly how it affects current events as with a little study you become aware of how things repeat themselves (might that be because no one ever learns or hears about the lesson?) and science.  Again religious beliefs have no place in the school except that you can believe what ever you want but need to understand what others in the scientific community are doing and why whether you accept that or not.  Our platform should be clear in stating that school is not for preaching anyone’s belief system – again that is what parents are for!   Also that our platform clarifies that government is not there to promote whatever the latest scientific trend is.  Oh and by the way I do not think that government should be concerned with nutrition pyramids or picking foods for us but I would support offering physical activity requirements in public schools – whatever happened to Kennedy’s physical program?

All insurance can go across state lines and federal standards will be set for insurance companies (based on protecting the consumer not giving them something)

A federal fund will be set up for states to borrow from for emergencies at the going interest rate.  The loan will be based on percentage of costs and will not fulfill all that is necessary as again citizens must accept personal responsibility for choice in life such as where to live.

The federal government stops funding anything not allotted to it in the Constitution (just about everything we are currently involved in).

We do not financially assist another country unless there is a real time return for that – can’t think of that occurring other than rebuilding after wining a war.

There is so much more but I think I make my point – social issues belong in the social market not the government.  Freedom is paramount as long as you hurt no one – or your rights extend to where they touch mine but not beyond.  Personal responsibility is the guide for all laws and regulations.

I think that any reasonable person would see that Romney would have no issues with agreeing on most of these points (if not all) and Santorum would have issues with most of them.  To me that clarifies the issue as to whom is conservative and whom is not.  Gingrich would also have issues as it would not allow him as President to have those BIG IDEAS as they have nothing to do with the Federal Government.

And while I am rambling I have a point to make regarding the Moon site that Gingrich and his followers want – am I the only person to remember that there is an international treaty that states that no country can do anything proprietary on the Moon?

So any of you who want to join and support my platform, add to it or clarify it let me know and those who have issues with it – let’s discuss it rationally.

2 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Aristotle, Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Debt Budget, Declaration, Economics, Education, Election 2012, First Amendment, Foreign Policy, Founding, Free Will, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, GOP, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Patriotism, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Religion, Rick Santorum, Tea Party, Teaching, Uncategorized, Unions, Welfare

The Prop 8 Decision and Why It Hurts Gay Rights

So the Prop 8 Court decision came in a few weeks ago and along with the Birth Control Mandate helped push Rick Santorum up in the polls.

And the gay rights community rejoiced.  Which I found odd, as usually, people don’t rejoice in  their own downfall (ignoring the Obama inauguration and mythical behavior of Nero).  Wait, ruling that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional is bad for gay rights?  Yeah it is.

Let me explain since I know there must be some confusion.

Basic human psychology is that people hate being forced to do something.  They really hate it.  But when they think they’re doing it themselves they’ll embrace doing that thing that they hated only a minute ago and go even a step further.  Think about the American Revolution, we started a war on a 2 cent tax on per metric ton of a breakfast beverage because it was forced on us but when it was our own representatives doing it, hell, let’s tax everything to death!  (A little hyperbolic, I’ll admit, but I think you get the point).   People are stubborn by nature, but Americans especially have a “bet me” attitude.  Another example, when was alcohol consumption highest?  When it was illegal.  To this day when does the alcohol intake for most people drop radically? The day after they turn 21…when it’s no longer a chance to stick it to the man, it loses a little something.

So what does this have to do with gay rights?  Well let me state a few things up front.  I think it is safe to say that the idea of complete equality in civil unions (as you know I advocate for getting rid of marriage and having both gay and straight couples have civil unions because marriage is a religious concept and thus the government shouldn’t be involved) is not a question of “if” but a question of “when.”  So long as Obama doesn’t finish the job of utterly destroying the world economy and sending us back a hundred years, I think it’s safe to say that in a hundred years gay rights battles will be an issues you read about in history books and occasionally hear Grandpa and Grandma (or any combination thereof) talk about.  But a hundred years is about 4 generations from now and while the question is not “if”, it is a question of “when.”  When? Will we have to wait those 4 generations or will it only be 1 generation?  Well, if the gay rights movement keeps trying to use the courts it will be all 4, because, as I said people hate having thing forced on them, even if that thing is in itself reasonable.

Don’t believe me.  Let’s look at some time lines:

1993 Hawaii Supreme Court finds that a statue limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is unconstitutional

Sept. 1996 Clinton signs Defense of Marriage Act

Dec 1996 Hawaiian  judge rules in favor of marriage being applied to same-sex couples

Nov 1998 Hawaii and Alaska voters approve of constitutional amendments to limit marriage to opposite sex couples.

Dec 1999 Vermont Court rules same-sex couples can’t be denied benefits granted to opposite-sex couples

Nov 2000 Nebraska approves constitutional amendments to limit marriage to opposite sex couples.

Nov 2002 Nevada does the same

2003 Massachusetts declares legislature has to enact same-sex marriage (on a side note, between this and Romney’s dealings with the legislature…what the hell kind of constitution do they have in the commonwealth?  The balance of powers seems completely out of whack)

2004 Massachusetts approves same-sex marriage (and San Francisco and Portland try to jump on the band wagon via fiat, but are shot down)

Aug 2004 Missouri joins the ranks of burdening their Constitution with silly marriage amendment

Sept 2004 Louisiana joins in the insanity

Nov 2004 Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, N. Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah join in the free for all.

April 2005 Kansas joins in the act

May 2005 District judge rules Nebraska version Unconstitutional (he is later overturned)

Nov 2005 Texas joins the club

June 2006 so does Alabama

Nov 2006 Colorado, Idaho, S. Carolina, S. Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin join in

May 2008 California Supreme Court rules the state ban is unconstitutional.  Marriages start in June.

Sept 2010 New Hampshire judges also order same-sex marriage

Nov 2008 California (prop 8), Arizona, Florida put in Constitutional bans.

I could go over more but I think you get the drift.  If you notice the way I group them every major act against gay rights and gay marriage is preceded by a court action in favor of gay rights.  Every action has an opposite reaction, and in politics it is always an unequal reaction.

But guess what, you never see this reaction when a state by popular vote or by legislative vote expands the equality of same-sex couples or even votes in gay marriage.  Because that is the will of the people, not legislation from the bench.

Think about it.  California, possibly the most liberal state in the nation voted in Prop 8.  Back in 1997 two-thirds of the state wanted an expansion of rights to gay couples.  California where half a dozen laws passed by the legislature expanding the rights of gay couples met with nary a complaint except from the radical fringe.    Yet this is the same California, that is 2008 voted to ban gay marriage by 52%.  Did a mass of rejects from Rick Santorum’s congregation suddenly get voting rights in the most liberal state in the nation…or did we see people give a very predictable reaction to having a court shove something down their throat that they weren’t ready for.

Should there be perfect equality?  Yeah.  Are people who violently oppose gay rights idiots?  Without question.  But right, wrong, or indifferent these are beliefs that are based on religion and tradition and habit.  They take time to change and forcing that change will only result in a violent backlash as we have seen with EVERY court decision in favor of gay rights.

The gay rights movement better pray that the Supreme Court takes the Prop 8 case and that they uphold Prop 8…because if they don’t, you will see a federal Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as a man and a woman clear both the House and the Senate without much debate and you will see it ratified by three-quarters of the states.  If California is willing to pass such a ban, do you really think any of the other states will put up much of a fight?  And it will take generations to get that stain of an amendment overturned.

Winning the Prop 8 case is Pyrrhic victory if it results in losing the war.

So am I suggesting that the gay rights movement just roll over?  No.  But fighting in the courts will only lead to disaster.  So what should the movement be focused on?  Well, for one stop trying to force the movement down people’s throats in other areas.  California mandating that gay history be taught  in public schools is insulting at the high school level (to single out people as being worthy of being mentioned for being a minority is just stupid no matter the minority, they’re either important to history or not, and if they are, usually their minority status is not important to what they did, and if it is, then that’s part of history and should be brought up)…but in elementary school  it’s just insane.  Most parents don’t want their elementary school children knowning heterosexual sex exists let alone gay sex, but go ahead make enemies of the middle class by forcing this into elementary schools.  I’m sure that will work great long term.

Leave the courts and laws alone for the moment.  It’s only going to breed negative reaction.  It would be better to focus on science and the social aspect.

By science I mean looking into the real cause of homosexuality and bisexuality.  I’ve searched, some studies I’ve seen suggest that the majority of humanity is bisexual and it’s just socialization that pushes a person one way or another (which would bizarrely give that stupid therapy shit some credence in a roundabout way, which no matter how silly the therapy is, you have to admit that would be ironic) and others that say it’s only a very small segment of society.  And while there seems to be some leads on genetics for male homosexuality, the cause of female homosexuality is still elusive.  From a scientific point of view, those are some friggin’ big gaps…ones that allow bigots to doubt (keep in mind these are the same people who can see fossils of 15 species that show a clear development over time but because number 16 is missing you can’t say 17 evolved from the others…I know they’re stupid, but fewer gaps you have the more of them you’ll peel off).  Facts help your case (and also debunking some of the pseudoscience I found on the web saying that there is no genetic component…I’m not going to include links because I was screaming at the computer screen and for me gay rights is a minor issue in the grand scheme of thing…I can only imagine if you were drawn to this blog because you were interested in the topic).  Facts will help win the middle which is what the movement needs.

And by social I mean, go with that “we’re just like you” campaign and get rid of the gay pride parades.  Really, like the court cases, those parades aren’t doing anyone any favors.  All those parades do is make the gay rights movement seem the counterbalance to the nutjobs from Westboro, it makes it seem to the general public that both sides are crazy.  That is not helping.  It needs to be clear Westboro Baptists=f’ing insane, gay rights movement=not insane people.  Do that you win.

Look, just recently the general public is finally in favor of gay marriage, according to Gallup but it’s not a large margin.  And if the movement continues demanding to force things before people are ready it will only result in those gains being temporarily destroyed.  I understand wanting it now.  I understand having to deal with the idiots who are close minded being infuriating.  But it is what is.  And not dealing in reality, showing a little patience (even if ethically you shouldn’t have to) will get you what you want sooner, then a tactical withdrawal is better than ruining everything, creating a federal amendment against your goals and giving idiots like Rick Santorum a platform to run on.

8 Comments

Filed under Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Laws the GOP should pass, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid, politics

Marriage, Religion and Society… (And in a roundabout way, another reason why Santorum’s a jackass)

Ugh…I hate social issues.  I would love it if everyone could just keep their personal lives personal and not worry about what other people are doing so long as they’re not hurting anyone.  And while I am quite the civil libertarian in caring about other people’s lives it might have something to do that my personal life could not be more bland and conservative…which may be why I couldn’t care about other people’s lives.

But because of Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumber (otherwise known as Obama and Santorum, I’m not sure which is which) and their ilk there will be no end to the discussion of these otherwise stupid topics for weeks if not months….no, no let’s not talk about saving the economy or dealing with absolute evil abroad, birth control and gay marriage is far more important than whether or not there will actually be a first world society in a generation. Far more important.

I’ve dealt with Obama’s overstep of executive authority in the guise of an attack on religious freedom so I guess it is now time to once again take on Santorum.  Of course that’s a whole mess of issues right there.  Well…let’s go to a few quotes:

“Marriage is not about affirming somebody’s love for somebody else. It’s about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.”

“Two people who may like each other or may love each other who are same-sex, is that a special relationship? Yes it is, but it is not the same relationship that benefits society like a marriage between a man and a woman[.]”

“The basic building block of a society is not an individual. It’s the family. That’s the basic unit of society.”

“Do they have a right? Should society do their best to make sure that that child has the best opportunity to be raised by that mother and father? The answer is yes.”

…and if you think those quotes have a distinct communist/collectivist call for 1984, Brave New World, or Anthem I wouldn’t blame you.  Really I’m fascinated to hear that marriage has nothing to do with love (makes you wonder what his home life is like…I’ve got an idea let’s see if his wife or daughters ever smile while on camera in a way that isn’t obviously forced to see how happy that home life is.)  So in Rick Santorum’s mind you are here only to have children to propagate society and we give special privileges to these breeders…(It makes you really frightened of his call to TRIPLE the tax credit for children…because in a time when any right thinking conservative wants to lower taxes and CLOSE all loopholes, he wants to open loopholes with a crowbar so as to encourage massive overpopulation because it’s working so well for the third world).   Okay we can agree that Rick Santorum doesn’t have a single neuron firing in that head of his.  But that still doesn’t put the general issue of marriage off the table even if I’m Santorum is lord high king of the idiots.  So let’s talk marriage…

Yes marriage is an important function of society.  Rick is wrong about it being the basis of society, that has always been and always will be the individual…but individuals need human companionship (usually in the form of friendship and marriage, and if they’re one in the same, then you’re blessed).  Now is marriage only for the “uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society”?  Not really.  People were having children and caring for them long before marriage, although marriage does help raising them, certainly, no one would argue that.  But it is not having a mother and father that helps, it’s having two parents that helps (increased income, increased ability for child care, increased experience) and anyone who thinks that gay people make bad parents isn’t just crazy, they’re flying in the face of a boat load of research (Just one example here).  But raising children isn’t the only thing marriage is for.  If Santorum wanted to ever crack a history book (which I don’t think he has ever done given his perverted views on the Founding Fathers view of liberty ) he might learn that property rights have traditionally had far more to do with marriage than children do…but that would require Santorum to care about property rights, which are an individual right and as he has much respect for individual rights as any communist or Asharite.  And while history is filled with moments where society progressed just fine without any strict government rules on marriage I would be foolish to say that marriage isn’t a great support for society.  However if Santorum and his followers think that gay marriage is a danger to marriage, or even if it’s that  relevant in the face of other government hits at marriage, then they’re idiots.

Granted, as I’ve said before, I would like the federal government and all the states to say that marriage is a religious institution and thus strike the term marriage from every law on the books…civil unions for everyone!  It’s up to your church whether to call what you have a marriage or not, not the government.  This has the advantage of A.) not letting government dictate what a religion can do (we’ll come back to this) (social conservatives get what they want) B.) Everyone will be equal (social liberals get what they want) C.)Nobody gets to win (because I hate people who think social issues are a function of government) and D.) Jackasses like Santorum will have to shut up (everybody on the planet wins).  All the legal privileges of the marriage could be easily transferred to these civil unions, but as it lacks the name it lacks the attack on a religious institution that expanding it encompasses.

But I will still admit that marriage, and a two parent family is important to a functioning society. You’d be a damn fool to deny that…but then again both social conservatives and social liberals are damn fools given how they act. Social liberals are idiots for what they’ve already done to weaken those social structures (and I’ll get to that in just a minute) and social conservatives are idiots for fighting a defensive war against gay marriage (which has nothing to do with the strength of the social institution, but it is very visible which suggest that their cause is more cynical demagoguery than heartfelt concern) rather than an offensive war against the liberal policies that actually have done harm to marriage and society.

But back to my statement about liberals actually having done some stuff have actually done to undermine the social institution of marriage (hint gay marriage isn’t going to be anywhere on this list).

Welfare and the Great Society.  Let’s pay unwed mothers money for having children.  That makes sense.  Because every economist from any school, be it Keynesian, Chicago or Austrian, will tell you that when you subsidize a behavior or product you get more of it.  Subsidize unwed children, guess what, you de-incentivize actually getting married or waiting until marriage to have children.  (This would also be tied to my opinion that Rick Santorum’s idea to triple the child tax credit when we have an over population problem is, well, brainless).  Really brain dead is that we pay for anything more than the first pregnancy.  I can see an argument for a safety net to help women who have had an accident, been dumped by the loser who got them pregnant, and need some help…one time is an accident (although I would prefer these to be run by counties and cities…not a distant bureaucracy in states and at the federal level).  But not two times.  And definitely not more than two.

Now if social conservatives really wanted to care about the well being of children and the defense of marriage as a social institution they would once again push for welfare reforms.  One that cut people off after the first pregnancy, ones that vigorously track down deadbeat dads (I wouldn’t mind upping what the minimum monthly payment is and bringing back debtors prison for those who won’t pay).  Or requiring the welfare recipients attend GED or job training to help ensure they get off welfare if they want to continue getting their check.  Or how about this one—we’ll keep track of every dollar you get in welfare payments you get from the government and the minute you start making over let’s say $25,000 a year the government will deduct 1% of your check until you’ve paid back what you took out, interest free because we’re not monsters (and the percentage of your check would go up slightly say 3% at $30,000 so forth and so on) this way no would ever view welfare as a free ride, thus removing many of the incentives for taking it.  But right now I’m hearing more about those evil, evil gays (who seem to be decent parents and no worse as couples than their straight counterparts) as what is ruining marriage.  Yeah couldn’t be the financial incentives against being married when having children.

Oh and speaking of financial incentives, why is that the call to end the marriage penalty at all levels has kind of disappeared?  As I recall the law passed under Bush to end the marriage penalty had a sunset date…isn’t that coming up?  How about this, offer a tax discount for those who get married.  Watch people get married and stay married when there are real financial incentives to do so.  Will some people get married for reasons other than love?  Probably, but how is that different from right now?  If you want to promote something don’t punish it.  But you haven’t heard that from social conservatives, now have you.  Hell, given the fact that children of single parent households have a higher likelihood of committing a crime, then financially incentivizing marriage would probably pay for the reduction in revenue via a drop in paying for imprisonment (among a whole mountain of secondary benefits, that was just the first one that came to me, trust me it would pay for itself ten times over).

I could go on, how Social Security and Medicare encourage people to dump bonds with their parents when they got old rather than bringing them into the household in a more stable extended family, how the government support for the liberal Teacher’s unions worked to destroy parental responsibility in raising their children, and a few other programs…but I think you get the point.  If social conservatives really cared about the state of marriage and the social benefits that the family brings there are things they could be doing that would be incredibly effective in strengthening the social institution.  But they would rather focus on something that has NOTHING to do with the strength of marriage.  (And liberals don’t go feeling self-satisfied about that last sentence, you actually have done some damage to the social institution of marriage, just because the conservatives are idiots and not calling you on it doesn’t make you less guilty.

Now social conservatives will probably come back with some stupid “gay marriage is the straw that will break the camel’s back” kind of argument.  But as we know in this case I think social conservatives are idiots.  If they really cared about the state of marriage and the need of married couple to properly raise children they would be attacking the liberal entitlement culture and not worrying about what gay people do.

Up next, why the Court decisions on Prop. 8 is actually the last thing the gay community should want because it’s going to hurt them…because the social liberal also need to be hit (with a peppering of insults against the right)

Leave a comment

Filed under Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Fear, Free Will, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Happiness, Laws the GOP should pass, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum, Taxes, Welfare

Bachmann shows class and character again…

LINK TO THE PODCAST

Bachmann Shows Class and Character

So gay rights activist didn’t do themselves any favors today. Hot on the heels of a great video that made the rounds on Facebook last week showing that gay people can raise children just as well as straight people…

…there is a new video that destroys all the good the last one did and shows that gay people are as human as everyone else, and can be absolutely terrible parents just as straight people can be terrible parents.

Take a look.

Now it may be hard to hear but the kid says “My mom is gay and she doesn’t need fixing.”
Sadly, the kid is very, very wrong.
Does his mom need fixing because she’s gay. Good lord no. But she does need fixing.
She needs fixing because instead of having the guts to challenge Bachmann on her own, to go and face Bachmann woman to woman, she uses the coward’s way out and uses a child as a body shield.
Clearly this child has been coached to say this. So this mother chooses rather than to take a stand and actually get into an argument with someone (and hell it’s an argument where almost* ALL the facts are on her side, it would have been far more embarrassing to Bachmann to have her challenged with a real opponent) she chooses to have her child speak for her because she is too afraid to justify her own life on her own. Such rank cowardice is sickening, and that she would use her child is worse.  And it’s quite frankly an insult to gay rights as it makes it appear it is a concept that can only be defended when you use cheap tricks.
I’m sorry, children should not be used as puppets in political and social debates. (But then again the left and it’s Occupy Wall Street kin are known for using children as human shield)

While children should be brought to political events and shown how a good citizen is involved (although given the massive amounts of crime and violence anyone who brings a child to an Occupy Wall Street event is clearly guilty of endangering a child), they should not be used as the mouth pieces for your political statements. Grow a spine and make your own comments.

But again thank you for showing that gay parents are just like straight parents—they can be complete asses or they can be great.

And kudos to Michele Bachmann for having the class and intelligence to realize that this child is just being used as a pawn. She gives the mother a dirty look (likely for being such a piss poor parent that would exploit their child for a political end…and bring a video recorder along for the ride, real classy, clearly the best interest of the child is always at the forefront of this parent’s mind) but for also saying goodbye to the child with a smile showing him that she bares him no animosity.
Also I love how this shows they don’t know who their enemy is. Bachmann has stated she’s not going to get in the way of states that choose to allow gay marriage. In fact how many times in the last year has Bachmann brought this issues up, as far as I know it’s only brought up by other people and she responds…as far as I can tell it’s not an issues that is important to her policy agenda one way or the other. A Bachmann presidency would likely see an expansion of states who allow it (if for no other reason than she would be a great lighting rod for the movement to use and encourage people to vote gay marraige or civil unions in, meanwhile she would allow state laws to be implemented…unlike say another President who feels that any state that doesn’t agree with him should be sued out of existence in complete violation of the Constitution) . Why not try going after Perry and Santorum who don’t understand states rights?  Or how about Obama’s miserable track record for gay rights?

*Those gay pride parades are a disgrace and really the gay community needs to drop that insanity and just go with the “we’re human and just like everyone else” line.


Oh, and before anyone misunderstands what offensive statement I’m making here, let me be clear, the fact that this woman in a terrible parent has absolutely nothing to do with her being gay…it has to do with her being liberal.

Leave a comment

Filed under Evils of Liberalism, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Government is useless, Michele Bachmann, Obama, Occupy Wall Street, politics

Where do we stand with the GOP hopefuls?

So I hear that there’s a GOP debate coming up. Thank God, most of these so called candidates seemed to have dropped off the face of the Earth for the last few weeks. I’m so glad during a major battle over the future of the U.S. economy most of the candidates decided to act as presidential as Obama and not come out with a plan or even for the most part say where they stand. Yes, thank you guys for showing how much of a leader you will be.

Since this is becoming a very wide field of contenders (mostly losers) I’m only going to cover people who are averaging at least 10% in the Real Clear Politics average  (mostly losers…two of whom aren’t even declared candidates). Currently this list is Romney (I’m certainly not thrilled), Perry (religious wacko), Palin (amoral demagogue), Bachman (my second choice by default), and Giuliani (master tactician and the next president of the United States).

Can I get another option?

Let’s start with Romney who is still in front (damned if I know why). Gee it was so nice that during this whole budget debate this man was nowhere to be seen. No plan, no comment, no lending moral support to the GOP. That’s what you call a leader—a man who does not risk his neck to stand on principle.

What is it that I dislike about Romney? Is it that he believes Health Care is a right like any good liberal? Is it that it seems he opposes the 2nd Amendment like any good liberal? Is it that he believes the government can mandate you buy something (like health insurance) like any good liberal? Is it that he supports federal funding for abortions like any good liberal?Is it because he buys into the religion of global warming like any good liberal? Is it because he’s a tax and spend liberal?

I don’t know what it is about Romney…oh wait, I do…he’s a goddamn liberal! If he wants to go challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination, more power to him, but this idiot needs to leave the Republican Party now!

Let me put it this way, convincing me that Romney is conservative is about as effective as convincing me that this parrot is alive:

 

Unlike Newsweek I fully admit my picture choices are completely biased.

Running in second place we have Gov. Perry, who apparently decided that with Huckabee out he could easily slip into the radical-wacko Christian slot for the GOP. Wow, Romney and Perry are the front runners, the liberal wing of the party and the nutty Christian wing, the two wings that need to leave this party and never come back! For instance, Perry in addition to holding a big prayer vigil this week also felt the need to talk about abortion as a state’s rights issue but that he would support an amendment against it…and I think there’s something about gay marriage in there too. Yes, that makes sense, the economy is falling to pieces and we still have that little problem of Islamic Terrorism (and their partners in crime Chinese Tyranny) to worry about…but clearly abortion and gay marriage are the first things we need to deal with. I have no problem with Christians, even Christians who hold moral values antithetical to my own, but I have serious problems with idiots who think their religion is more important than things that actually matter. I have thousands of spiritual issues I think are important and society needs to change, but I guess not one of them is more important than the economy and blowing up evil people. Not one. The crazy Christian wing needs to realize this as well. Economy, foreign policy…right now just about nothing else matters. Perry clearly doesn’t get this.

She would sell her soul for a dime...yours for even less.

In fourth place we have Sarah “I will say anything to further my bank account” Palin. Her clever comment about if the Tea Party was acting as terrorists then Obama would love us aside, I abhor this woman’s lack of principles. I find it shocking that Republicans like this woman. But what’s not to like? The fact that as governor of Alaska she supported raising taxes on corporations? Perhaps that she blamed banks for the financial collapse and not the government for forcing them to make those bad loans. Or that her answer to education is to spend more, like any good liberal would say.  Seeking government subsidies to help pay for her TV show. Maybe it was her supporting pork like the bridge to nowhere.

Or then there’s that little thing about who she likes as a politician. She says she supports the Tea Party. Really? The Tea Party is against amnesty for illegal aliens, against raising taxes, against curtailing free speech, against growing government, against massive spending. All the darling projects of one bleeding heart liberal named John McCain. And Palin endorsed McCain in his run for the Senate. Can’t have it both ways. She either supports the ideals of the Tea Party or she supports the opposite of those ideals embodied in John McCain. She endorsed McCain….but actually she can have it both ways. Why? Because she has absolutely not a single shred of integrity or morals. She will go with any idea, any position, or any group if she thinks it will get her money or power. She’s a demagogue, nothing more. Certainly not stupid, because she has engineered her rise quite well, but certainly not a principled human being either.

Don't disappoint me Bachman

Then we come to Michele Bachman. My reluctant 2nd choice. My second choice because you have to admire her being the only one to take a stand on this debt debate. Take a stand, articulate it and not budge. I believe that’s called character. I agree with her hard line stance that government needs to cut; spending needs to be cut, the size and scope of the federal government needs to be cut. I’m also so what happy with this statement she made during her first debate on her opinion of states that are allowing gay marriage, “I’m running for the presidency of the United States. And I don’t see that it’s the role of a president to go into states and interfere with their state laws.” To me this says she understands that these religious issues are not as important as the economy.

Why am I reluctant? Because all those other comments she’s made about gays and about abortion. Makes me worry just a little about how much she would make them a priority in her administration…mind you not enough that if was between her and Romney or her and Perry or her and Obama I wouldn’t vote for her, but enough that I would still not be thrilled doing it. But there is a way out that will make me put away my reservations. All she has to do is take up GOProud, the real gay Republican organization, (not to be confused with the liberals who are the Log Cabin Republicans) meet with them, agree that gay rights are a state’s rights issue and thus not under the authority of the presidency, and just agree to disagree. (I’d be even more thrilled to hear her endorse my plan to strike the concept of marriage from the law books and leave that up to the churches…but I’m hopeful not delusional). She could even make an announcement with the honorary chair of GOProud’s advisory council, Ann Coulter, that way she would get both the moderate social part of the country and the hard line fiscal conservatives in one moment. Please Michele show me you’re far-sighted enough to realize this is in your and the country’s best interests.

And finally, my man, perhaps the second coming of Reagan to Obama’s second coming of Carter, Rudy Giuliani. The man is not even running yet and he’s already higher than most of the field! I am hoping for an entry into the field by the end of the month with the shock and tactical genius of Sun Tzu himself. And it appears from the signs I may not be wrong. 

Our greatest hope

I will hold out hope for the unstoppable force of Giuliani/Bachmann as long as I can.

Leave a comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Conservative, Debt, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, GOP, Illegal Immagration, Michele Bachmann, Obama, Problems with the GOP, Rudy Giuliani, Tea Party

The GOP, Gay Marriage, and the Need To Grow Up

The GOP needs to learn to prioritize

So apparently the Navy will not be going ahead with plans to allow chaplains to marry same sex couples, at least until “don’t ask, don’t tell” is officially ended, which isn’t going to be long. This was due in great part to the complaints of conservative members of Congress.

To these members of Congress I can only ask that they either shut up for the rest of their time in Congress. (Or maybe we should ship them off to the Taliban or Uganda so they’ll be with likeminded people)

Really? Really? With Obama pushing socialist health care down our throats, with the Taliban still well entrenched in Afghanistan, with a third theater of action in Libya, with a massive debt, with a debate over the debt ceiling and cutting costs, with the Obama administration pushing the sub-prime mortgages that were the catalyst for our economic problems (believe me I’ll be talking about this one soon enough), with Obama seeming to edge towards amnesty, with ten-thousand issues that have more relevance on our lives the GOP wants to deal with gay marriage again? What the hell are these people thinking?

From a moral standpoint these idiots just need to grow up. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Now, I don’t support gay marriage per-se, but as I’ve stated before I don’t think the government should be sanctioning heterosexual marriage either—it’s a religious institution and the government should have nothing to do with it. Grow up people, this is not an issue.

From a pragmatic standpoint it becomes even worse. First, as I’ve pointed out even if there was some kind moral issue here (which there isn’t) there are a lot of other things that should be taking up Congress’s time. I know, foreign policy and economic stability are so boring, but sadly they’re what we have government for. We don’t have government for telling people what or where they can put their genitals because we are not Iran (also unlike Iran we don’t prosecute people for sorcery). But there is another, and I’ll admit, cynical pragmatic reason why this should not have been brought up. This is not going to win us any votes with the middle ground. This will however do its job at reinforcing the incorrect belief that the GOP is a bunch of psycho fundamentalist bigots. This is particularly annoying to those of us in the GOP who are, you know, sane and do not stay up at night worrying about whether gays can marry. Yeah, that will win elections.

Boehner needs to pull everyone in Congress into a room and make it clear that if it doesn’t deal with the economy, foreign policy, or getting rid of Obama it is not an issue.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Problems with the GOP

Laws the GOP should pass #18: A series of compromises Part 3

Compromise Bill #3 Gay Marriage

Now I will admit I’m stealing from myself on this (I’ve mentioned this before in a previous blog and in my upcoming book Republicans and Reincarnation) but this is exactly the kind of compromise I’m suggesting the GOP make to ensure that it comes out ahead with the American public.

Republicans need to drop this defense of Marriage/against gay marriage bull. Really it helps no one. Marriage isn’t weakened or strengthened because of laws. It might be because people are no longer shamed in public for divorce, but you really don’t want to start legislating how people should be ashamed. That would be a Pandora’s Box you would never even want to conceive of opening. Ever!
Marriage is a beautiful institution. But strangely enough it’s a religious institution. What is the government doing regulating a religious institution? What is it doing giving tax benefits for a religious institution? Giving property and inheritance rights for a religious institution? I may not have the truly psychotic interpretation of the wall between Church and State that those idiot Atheists do, but this does seem to be intruding just a little too much of State intruding on Church. So here is what I propose:
We change every single reference to marriage in all law (from federal down to the most local) to civil unions. Any two legal adults, who are not related by blood, can engage in a civil union. You are allowed to engage in a civil union with only another legal adult. (I also assume there will need to be some kind of provision of living at same residence).
Doesn’t the “not related by blood” thing show I’m just making this marriage by another name? No. Most of the benefits that those proposing for gay-marriage (inheritance, custody of children) are that courts already give preference to family members.
Marriage will return to being a religious institution. If you can get your priest, rabbi, minister or whatever to marry you, great! If you don’t want to be married but just the civil union you can. Or vice versa.
Now we will have some changes come about in the way health care is dealt with. There can be no laws about forcing health care providers to give health care to the other partner of a civil union (If you want to have laws forcing coverage for the children of someone who gets coverage, the capitalist in me still has problems with this, but I also realize I can’t upset everything at once). However, it would be good business to offer rates for partner at reduced prices, which I’m sure will happen as the companies that offer such an incentive will have better business (especially since it would encourage people to have a civil union partner, which it has been shown in study after study that if you live with someone, even if you aren’t intimate you have fewer health problems).
For the same reasons there need to be really good tax incentives for entering into a civil union. I mean spectacular tax incentives. Why? Well to still encourage people to get married with is good for society as any social scientist will tell you. But this will also encourage people who are not married to get at least become better friends with each other, which is also an exceptionally important part of society (and becoming somewhat lacking in the modern world).
Now will business partners or roommates get civil unions for tax benefits or whatever other benefits come with it? Sure. But, do you really think people aren’t getting married for health insurance, tax benefits, or a green card right now? This may make civil unions a bit of a joke, but it actually won’t affect the strength of marriage in any negative way (in fact people who say they are married will likely have much stronger relationships because now they don’t see failed “marriages” all around them which cause negative psychological effects about their own marriage.)
Marriage is stronger, for the conservatives. Everyone is treated perfectly equal in the eyes of the law, for the liberals. A perfect compromise.

1 Comment

Filed under Gay Marriage, Laws the GOP should pass

Random thoughts for February.

We’re ending what has been a rather eventful month and while I would love to deal with each of these following issues in their own blog I feel I should at least say a short something on them before they cease to be news.

Whatever happened to Tunisia? Or that new country that used to be Sudan? I’ve checked Fox, CNN, the Drudge, RealClearPolitics, RealClearWorld, Washington Times, all seem to be blank. Yes, Egypt and Libya are big news. But how new governments are faring in Africa might give us some better idea of how the latest round of insurrections are going to turn out. This is actually a big problem with all of American foreign policy: we get bored. We deal with something while it seems important, but like an ADD child, flip to something else when it no longer seems really interesting even though that’s when it really needs our attention and care. Don’t believe me go back and watch “Charlie Wilson’s War” and ask yourself how bad off Afghanistan would be today if in the 90’s we had spent money on roads, schools, hospitals, and other basics of infrastructure in the country. Do you think the Taliban would have taken over? Do you think we’d be wasting so much in military expenditures right now if we had just kept our eyes on the long term solution and not just drifted off to the newest problem of the week?

And while mentioning Egypt. Why are you people so happy? We traded a military dictator for…a military dictatorship…a military dictatorship which threw out the country’s constitution. Which is now allowing Iranian military to use the Suez. Which God knows what they’ll do next week. I’m sorry but I’ve seen nothing yet to convince me that they simply will not be any different from Mubarak.

Can the media please find a way to agree on how to spell G/Kh/Quadaffi? Please. Is it that really hard? I understand that Anglicanizing Arabic words isn’t an exact science, but is it that hard to pick one and run with it?

It’s a little sad that Libya’s representative in the UN condemned Gaddafi before Obama did. Was it really that hard to decide on where you stood on the Gaddafi issue Barrack? The man has been our enemy since the 1980’s. This shouldn’t be a hard one. If this were a longer blog there would be lots of Neville Chamberlain comparisons, but I assume you can fill those in yourself.
Say what you will about Bush’s foreign policy—he had one. It might not have been well planned out, but it was a policy…and not, you know, changing statements every time the tides change like some presidents.

The real revolt to watch is the Chinese crackdown on dissidents right now. If China goes the way of the Mideast it will be a moment as important as the fall of the Berlin Wall. … … If it goes under do we still owe money to whoever takes over? (If we have to pay somebody I say we maintain all that money goes to Tibet).

On that note, even though China’s bought a lot of our debt, one would think with the millions of government sanctioned copyright and proprietary secret violations China commits, if we were to ever actually collect on the fines their government owes us….well you get where that line of thought is going…

The definition of sad: Obama dropping his defense of the Defense of Marriage Act. It’s not sad because I support the bill, I really don’t, but it’s his clear motives. He’s just desperately trying to lock down a voting bloc he will need in 2012. Yet he can’t actually come out and say he supports gay marriage because that will lose another voting bloc. Cynical and cowardly. In my experience, people I know who are homosexual are a lot brighter than to fall for this kind of pathetic move.

Oh and what idiot in the Press Secretary’s office approved the words “grappling” in saying that Obama is grappling with his views on gay marriage? Granted, any jokes on that word choice would be immature and rather sad. But my point here is that media relationship experts would also generally advise you to not put yourself in the position to allow such associations to be made. In context it’s a perfectly acceptable and accurate word (if it was true, I somehow doubt Obama doesn’t actually stand on one side or the other)…however in the subconscious association game that is media relations the words “grapple” and “gay marriage” should never be in the same sentence. Clearly this new press secretary is as much of an idiot as the last one.

Finally, the fact that “Waiting for Superman” is not nominated for best documentary shows you that Hollywood is about as insanely liberal and in bed with corrupt unions. Also Chris Nolan not getting best director is a travesty.

3 Comments

Filed under China, Gay Marriage, Tyranny

Why You’re Likely An Idiot If You Have An Opinion On Gay Marriage

Ever since November I have been subject to a string of my liberal friends bemoaning the fact that gay marriage bills didn’t pass or with news about new ones that are coming up. I have to hear numerous statement about how America is backwards and how this is a violation of civil rights…blah blah blah (I’m not trying to demean the argument…yet…I’m just trying to save space and we all know how this particular rant goes). On the flip side before November I had to listen to screeds from my conservative friends on how this was social engineering; how this was going too far, too fast; how this was forcing beliefs on people… blah blah blah. (I would like to point out here that if you knee-jerk associate the words “conservative” and “bigot” you are an idiot, most conservatives make rational arguments, or at least ones that sound rational on first glance).

Both sides have very legitimate points.

Both sides are stupid beyond words.

I’m going to attack the liberals first (this was a decision literally decided by coin toss, because I do hate both side on this argument). Is this a civil rights issue? Is it really? Power of attorney, hospital visitation, inheritance (with some glaring exception that I will admit) rights, joint property…that can all pretty much be obtained, even in places that don’t offer that under the civil partnerships. You might then claim that healthcare benefits aren’t usually guaranteed…and I’ll grant that, the legal requirement that demands employers give benefits to your spouse won’t be instituted unless your relationship is recognized as a marriage…but then again I argue forcing employers to give benefits to spouses is unethical, beyond the appropriate power of a government, and it hurts small businesses…. so the hell if I’m going to argue in favor of extending something I’m against. It would like arguing if one person has a malignant tumor then everyone should have one. Furthering economic suicide is usually not my thing.
So then the argument goes that you still deserve to be recognized as a married couple. Recognized by whom? You can have any piece of paper and the legal sanction you want and bigots are still going to be bigots. And you can lack a piece of paper and sane people will recognize your relationship as a marriage, legal or not. Maybe it’s the legal recognition you need. But let me say if you need a government’s recognition for any relationship you have with another human being—if you actually need the government’s permission to love a person (which is what this is asking for)—then you have some serious psychological issues. (I think applies more to the straight people who yell the loudest in favor of gay marriage, as opposed to many gay people I know who would rather just live their life and not give rat’s ass what the government thinks about them).
There are other arguments in favor of gay marriage, but I’ll save us some time. I think that they are primarily stupid too.
Social Conservatives (I differentiate here because I feel true conservatism just doesn’t care about an issue like this), your turn to be shown to be morons.
Honestly now, in a 100 years is gay marriage going to be legal everywhere? Yeah it is. Why fight the inevitable. Because gay marriage is an affront to marriage, the call goes…. to which I respond not any more than the divorce and adultery rates in this country among straight marriages. At this point one of two things happens either what I get here are some bizarre arguments about polygamy and bestiality—but really while I think gay marriage will eventually be accepted because in the end, (no one wants to deny two people who are love the right to be married because we can all understand that), I don’t think even a decent minority will ever be able to understand those other forms of relationships (and I use the word very loosely there) so I think we’re safe. … (and if a good portion of America could accept polygamy or bestiality then we will be having far more serious issues than who can marry whom). So most of the conservative arguments are pretty stupid (unless I heard someone make the economic healthcare argument, but I seem to be the only one who makes that, so conservatives are idiots too)…
…But I said one of two things happens. The other argument conservatives make is about social engineering. And this is a difficult point to dismiss because they’re not entirely wrong here. And let me explain what I mean. I don’t think most people would have a problem with homosexual marriage in a vacuum. But when you pile the rather tactless things called gay pride parades (the most insightful look at gay pride parades has ironically been done by The Onion), and teaching Kindergartner’s about homosexuality (because most of us don’t think it’s appropriate to teach children that young about anything even remotely related to sex), and the fact that pretty much 2/3’s of the people allowed on TV are crazy and do not represent the main stream beliefs of any group they claim to represent—including the people who advocate for gay rights, and a myriad of other programs and policies the movement for equality seems to come on a little strong. Human beings don’t like change, doesn’t matter if it’s logical or not, people resist change…they’ll begrudgingly go along if they see a rational reason for change, but when you give them a rational excuse not to (like the arguably radical insanity that the California Dept. of Education wants to add to elementary school education in teaching homosexuality) they’ll dig in their heels. Add into it claims that government is forcing churches to accept gay marriage…is it really that hard to understand why an average person would feel “Okay we need to slow down here.” And they dig in their heels and refuse to make any more changes. It’s a semi-rational response, it may not be completely right but it is understandable.
Moreover, after this happens then both sides decide to play a game of “Who can be the bigger idiot” because each side in this has all the maturity of a two year old… And they have to not so much get what they want, or even prove that they’re right, they just have to prove the other person wrong and force them to choke on being wrong…which of course leads to really rational behavior on both sides. Each trying to push the other further. The gay rights community pushes further, doing stupid things like denying funds to the funds to church run programs designed to help the less fortunate because the church in question doesn’t accept gay marriage (note this isn’t an argument that the government shouldn’t be giving money to churches or even in the welfare business at all its just that we won’t support those churches that will actually stand by their beliefs, and actually it comes off as trying to force churches to change their beliefs). This insanity leads to more insanity, which causes the conservatives to do stupid things like write stupid constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. We all know how this plays out.
And this little farce of name calling will go on until one side grows up and asks not so much of how to I make “them” lose, but asks how can we both win…
…And when you’re ready to grow up I already have the answer for you….

…. Wait for it…

…Civil Partnerships for everyone! We will strike the words marriage from every legal code in existence, in all 50 states, various territories, and all federal codes. Any two people can enter into a civil partnership because it will be little more than a basic legal contract. It will come with all the benefits of marriage but it will not be called marriage. Thus legally everyone is equal. Marriage will be a function of the church, and it’s up to your church to decide who it will marry and who it won’t. Now people can call their relationship a marriage if they want even if they haven’t had a church sanction it, because you have freedom of speech (how many people call themselves Christians without living up to a single tenet of the religion?) But no one is receiving a “sanctioned” religion outside of what churches approve…so no one should be saying marriage is being ruined…if anything it makes it only a religious act, which is what I thought it was supposed to be. Hell you could even get married without the legal paperwork…but in the end everyone has what they wanted. It’s a win/win.

But I predict both sides of this debate will continue to be idiots.

5 Comments

Filed under Gay Marriage, Gay Rights