I didn’t watch the GOP debate – took the wife out to dinner and looked over ultra-sound photos of one of two coming grand children (one coming in September, another in February). This seemed to me a better use of my time – I tend not to like debates, at all, because they run to the absurd…and when you’ve got more than two candidates up there, just more absurd. A debate should be between two candidates who ask each other questions.
I’ve read some of the after-action reports and it looks like no one hit it out of the park – which is to be expected, as its impossible to score big when you’ve got that many people up there. Bottom line for the GOP is that any of the candidates are vastly superior to Obama, if on nothing else than they are all, to greater or lesser degree, in touch with reality while Obama is waaaay the heck out there in liberal fantasy-land. But one thing did interest me as I read the after-action reports – a linked article from NBC:
Santorum continues anti-gay rhetoric, takes shot at Bachmann, rest of field
Rick Santorum today finally wrapped up his 50-city tour de Iowa.
He continued to press anti-gay views, saying that calling same-sex marriage a marriage would be like calling a cup of tea a basketball.
He repeatedly quoted a study that families do better in heterosexual marriages. Though that study actually uses the phrase “nuclear” family, which can include same-sex couples…
This is what passes for a news report – pure, unadulterated editorializing. It would pass entirely un-noticed had it been a Daily Kos entry. But since it is an MSM report – and thus a DNC press release, as it were – it tells us what the MSM/DNC wants…a big debate about social issues, with the GOP cast in the usual role of bigots.
What the report calls “anti-gay” views by Santorum are, or course, just bedrock, Catholic/Christian views on sexual and marriage matters. Any sex outside marriage is inherently disordered, and as marriage is meant for the formation of integral families with the potential for naturally born children, same sex couples cannot licitly participate in it. You can disagree with these views, but to call them “anti-gay” is to be a liar. This, of course, is something no person of the left has a problem with…using situational ethics, it is ok to lie as long as it advances your cause. By calling them “anti-gay” and thus implying a nasty bigotry to Santorum – and, by extension, all conservative GOPers – the MSM/DNC is showings its hand…cook up a case of bigotry against the GOP, set GOPer against GOPer on the issue and then allow Obama to portray himself as the voice of reason (and remember, Obama will not jettison his official opposition to gay marriage until after the election…until then, he’s still opposed but is “growing” and “studying” and being just one heck of a reasonable guy).
The key for the GOP in defusing this and turning it to our advantage is not to engage directly on the gay marriage issue – or, indeed, any of the contentious, social issues. Our job is to point out the general moral collapse in our society and lay the blame for it squarely where it belongs – on liberal Big Government. The riots in Britain give us the perfect opportunity to turn this debate firmly our way – we can point out that decades of welfare, moral relativism and general societal disintegration have led Britain to a place where welfare bums riot, the police are scared to act and anyone who tries to defend his life and property is at risk of arrest. This is where the liberals are leading us – and if we want to avoid this trap then we need a firm, moral leadership which will insist that everyone pull their weight, that everyone live up to their moral responsibilities and that we start putting pressure on the purveyors of filth to stop it.
Think about how it is now – we rat bastards in the GOP have to stand athwart that nice, gay couple the MSM/DNC will highlight. We have to tell Jack and Fred, who have been in a relationship for 20 years, that we won’t allow them to marry…and the narrative will be that it’s just because we’re nasty and cruel. The truth of the matter is that gay marriage is a symptom, not the bedrock problem. The real problem is that we’ve got moral decay which has led us to the point it seems reasonable that gays should marry…just as it seems reasonable that millions of able bodied should be on disability; just as it seems reasonable that illegitimacy is common; just as it seems reasonable pornography is easily available…one bit of social decay after another, but each individually something which is hard to combat. Lump them all together and demonstrate where they are leading us, and it becomes a clear problem and an issue we can win on.
Leave aside the details, deal with the broader issue. Take on what is overwhelmingly wrong rather than trying to attack each separate manifestation of societal decay. Remember, we need a revolution to fix America – its gone way past bit by bit reform. The whole socio-politico-economic system needs to be revamped from top to bottom. Getting tangled up in small time details just plays in to the left’s hands…it allow them to attack us as bigots while the truth is that they need to be condemned as destroyers of America.
Tags: gay marriage, GOP Primary, morality, RIck Santorum
Yes, Mark, but you do have to keep in mind that there are no “morality” codes within the US Constitution for a reason. The very reason there are no such codes is because people like you with strong religious beliefs because of past experience might wish to use the force of law to impose those beliefs on others.
America is not a Christian nation; it is a Secular Republic of laws and a Constitution. In the 1940s when the debate about interracial marriage was equally as hot as the gay marriage debate is now many reporters and members of the clergy alike said things much like you have about “moral collapse” and the need for “moral leadership.” It has been more than 60 years since the Perez decision in California and now in every state there is no restriction on marriage based upon race. Societies do not collapse Mr Noonan because of Progress in the form of granting people their inalienable civil rights; societies collapse because they respect a minority held tradition too deeply and turn their backs on Progress out of fear or simply ignorance.
Mark Noonan, the US Constitution does not protect you or anyone else from being offended by the actions of others and your religion is not the law of the land in America; it is a choice that you have taken to breast to soothe your ailing Soul. Let all others in a free Society choose their own paths as you travel on yours.
[q c p n!]
mention sodomy and perversion and a forker shows up……..
bwany is dat you?
interracial marriage was a social issue in the south, you know the donkrat KKK south.
homosexuality is a pathology, a mental illness and according to every major religion in the world a sin and taboo. as well as illegal in every state for over 200 years.
sucks to be you exemptor (literally)
Mark
stand firm on condemnation of all sin, these are nothing but socialistic attacks.
we see how homos are treated in communist, and islamic countries.
They are but tools and useful idiots in the war on Americas values which the family is the bed rock of.
we can point them to the bible, but we are not to be unevenly yolked with non believers or sinners.
we must fight the war on all fronts.
remember we allied with russia in ww2 and got snake bit for it.
Civil rights are civil rights. All must needs have them or none shall.
Interracial marrieage was a national issue until the Perez decision in California in 1948. Like the push for a marriage amendment to the Constituion today in 1871 an amendment was propsed making interracial marriage illegal. Every state in the Union save for Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York, New Jersey, Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont and New Hampshire had a law on the books that made the marriage of a black person to a white person illegal.
To say homosexulaity is a pathology is to say something akin that heterosexuality is as well. To a reasonable mind this is clearly a fallacy. Religions do not make law.
Neocon I believe you mean unequally yoked.
This man disagrees with you.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams
Mr Adams has my respect as a great man of a burgeoning democracy two hundred forty years ago but the context of an every changing Republic he is as wrong as he is dead.
Our Constitution does not secure a right to anyone to destroy the United States of America – it is not a suicide pact. You find me the provision in there which actually says that people who can work have a right to lay about on public relief, or that some people have a right to make bags of money by purveying filth to children, or that there is a prohibition in there against social ostracism for those who fail to live up to their moral obligation….go on, you go look for those provisions in the Constitution. I’ll be waiting.
Bingo….
Mr Noonan, you are correct that the US Constitution is not a suicide pact. What it does do is guarantee the Rights of Citizens. One of those rights is the assurance of equal protection of the laws. There is no means by which, by my interpretation of the 14th amendment, that if a couple is deemed under the law is married in any of the several states then another can declare a couple is not. Such an act by a state is unconstitutional.
A Man has every right to lay about on public relief if he so chooses. He also has a right to suffer the weather without shelter and die of hunger if he so chooses. Catholic Churches feed the homeless; would you prefer they not do this good work?
The 1st amendment guarantees freedom of speech. To some, being a busker on the streets of San Francisco or Los Angeles is free speech. To others organizing street protests is free speech. To some making films [adult, documentaries or mainstream] is free speech. The Constitution of the United States does not guarantee protection from having your moral sensibilities offended. It does provide protection against the ill will of those who would seek to deny rights to anyone for any number of odious reasons.
America is a large nation Mr Noonan and in the many years I have been around I have seen much of it in its best and most golden times and in its darkest and worst of times. I doubt seriously if there will ever be a place where a person can be fully ostracized from society. To demand that from a man who has paid his debt to society for being a felon is to say that all felons should be put to death. No civilized man would dream those words. For that coverage by Constitutional law I would point you again to the 14th amendment. Such ostracism would be an assault, a mens rea, attack on an individual by a group and therefore a Hate Crime.
Cav,
You’re throwing around the 14th in typical liberal fashion – without understanding it, yourself, and in hopes that no one reading casually will bother to go look at it. I, fortunately, am actually familiar with the provisions of said amendment, and the part of most concern is the first part:
This was primarily enacted in order to permanently void the Dredd Scott decision which had held that some people born in the United States were not citizens of the State wherein they reside, and thus could have their privileges and immunities voided…Scott’s case having been that while resident in a free State he became free and thus able to avail himself of the Courts to argue that his involuntary servitude ended when once brought to a State which had, under its 9th and 10th amendment powers, banned slavery. The Supreme Court had speciously ruled that some persons – in this case, persons of African ancestry – could never be citizens of any State. The 14th amendment fixed that for good. Long after enactment, liberals started lying about it and claiming the 14th amendment essentially voided the 9th and 10th amendment and allowed one State – or even locality – to void any law in another locality or State by enacting a law which allowed something banned elsewhere.
You can try to rejoin with “the Supreme Court has said This or That”, and I’ll just direct your attention to the aforementioned Dredd Scott decision as absolute proof that the Supreme Court can get it vastly wrong. Plenty of recent Supreme Court decisions are just as specious as Dredd Scott – including, most notably, Roe.
We are going to back to a constitutionally governed republic, Cav – and that means a republic where rights are properly understood and responsibilities are rigorously enforced. You won’t like it – you’ll whine and complain; and no one will care. We’re having a revolution – bound to tick a lot of people off.
“there are no “morality” codes within the US Constitution for a reason. ”
Yes cav, they are not in the Constitution, therefore these are to be determined by the states. BUT you liberals err, excuse me, “progressives” have seen to it that the courts create rights with your “living” Constitution strategy.
tired,
And we can see it – Cav wants to keep the debate scatter shot…not about the overall decline of morality (which everyone sees) but about this or that particular aspect which he can raise endless objections to. We win this debate when we take things as a whole and go after them like that. Leave aside any particular debate about this or that activity – hit hard at the general moral decline, tie it to Big Government and platform ourselves as the party of moral responsibility.
They are to be determined by the individuals. If enough individuals wish to codify those into local and state laws, so be it. There must be a plebiscite to determine if there is a majority will for this action. This is why I hold that referenda are essential to any true democracy. You did me no disservice by calling me a liberal for I am in my politics and in my ethics both of which are as sound as yours without any need for clarification by anything other than my own conscience and the knowledge of right and wrong.
Mr Noonan I do not wish to “debate scatter shot” I simply want all the Citizens of the United States to live as freely as possible and not be restricted by those whose values haerken back to some salad days of yore. America is a land of personal freedoms. Just because a person is engaged in legal behaviour that you find offensive does not mean it should be illegal. Just do what you do now and avoid it. Morality is its own gatekeeper.
Caliphate Emperian, D.U.M-A.S.S wrote;
Redundundant! Boy, the day they taught Law in Law School, you must have been out takin’ a whizz. “Codify” is the process of forming a legal code, you know like a Law.
As proof of my phony credentials as a make-believe lawyer in PlayLand of the Galacticly Insane, I don’t seem to understand “inalienable rights” and “civil rights.” So I’ll straighten myself out;
The short definition of Rights is “A just or legal claim or title”. Or “a permission that is given that has a legal backing”. In this country we have two basic types of rights: Civil and Inalienable.
Civil rights are rights that are given to an individual based on the laws of a society. It is the governing body of that society that has authored and guaranteed the civil rights of its citizens. Civil rights can also be revoked at any time.
Inalienable rights, on the other hand, are rights that are (according to the Declaration of Independence) are given by the Creator (God). A governing body may hinder these rights, but does not have the legal authority to revoke these rights. Man cannot dictate or control what God has already given.
[E.S.A.D! Moron]
“This is what passes for a news report – pure, unadulterated editorializing.”
Nice lie, Mark. There’s no editorializing in that quote. Santorum said those things. And the report he likes to (incorrectly) cite does say “nuclear families,” not “heterosexual families.” Stating simple facts is not “editorializing” just because reality is at odds with your world view.
Bodie,
It is editorializing to call Santorum’s position “anti-gay”…you might believe it is, but that is an opinion…and when you express an opinion, as oppose to stating facts, you are editorializing.
Do I have to draw you a picture?
Mark
I think boobie is just plain lying as is the MSM
but who cares?
they will name call and accuse any way, may as well let it hang out.
Mr Noonan it is patently anti-gay. What would you choose to call it then “Pro-Catholic.” How does that square with the Constitutional mandate of separation of church and state?
Calvary Esophagus,
I’m no more a lawyer than you are, but I can read the Constitution and understand the word “mandate”.
Mr. Nooman is free to practice his religion as he pleases because the First Amendment establishes freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. How about addressing your legal buffoonery regarding ” inalienable civil rights”?
You’re also aware that posing as an attorney in any forum is illegal, right?
[G.E.T-a-L.I.F.E]
there is NO such thing as “GAY”.
it is homosexual anal sex = sodomy. a pathology, insanity, and a perversion.
you can call a SHIITE sandwich bologna all you want, at the end of the day it is still poop.
and so is sodomy
Neocon
Married heterosexual couples engage in anal sex as they will. What about them? And for the record there is gay and there is lesbian and it is not a pathology. It may offend you but there are many things that offend my demon sensibilities in America that are full on legal and I would not do a thing to change them.
Lesbians aren’t Gay?
Damn, I’m having trouble with this whole homo-agenda thing.
Cavalier Epiphany is right; hetrosexual couples engage in anal sex; he’s living proof that it can result in pregnancy.
a 200 lb TURD?
whew……..
mens rea,
penicillin…..fast!!
It’s not an opinion that Santorum’s position is anti-gay. Nor is it an opinion that your positions are anti-gay, for that matter. You just want to be victim because conservatives love being victims for some reason. But if you spend so much time, energy, and rhetoric opposing gay equality, calling gays moral inferiors, etc., then guess what? You’re anti-gay. You’ve called plenty of people “anti-Christian” for using much lighter rhetoric than Santorum’s, but again, you always want to be a victim.
boody
there is NO such thing as “gay”
it is HOMOSEXUAL and it is a perversion.
See, at least neocon doesn’t try to pretend that he isn’t anti-gay.