Social Conservatism

Gay Marriage-Bashing Not on Red Meat Menu Served by Cruz, Paul at Value Voters Summit

|

Cutting off people's heads a bigger concern than gay marriage, it seems.
CSpan

The annual Value Voters Summit, taking place right now in Washington, D.C., and hosted by the Family Research Council (FRC), gives Republican politicians the opportunity to fire up the party's social conservatives with a heaping helping of red meat.

Senators Ted Cruz (Texas) and Rand Paul (Kentucky), both potential (I suppose "likely" would be more accurate) presidential candidates for 2016, gave big speeches today focusing on religious liberty for Christians, both abroad and at home. The big targets were Muslim radicals and governments who were attacking Christians in the Middle East, and Obamacare for attempting to force Christian-owned businesses to fund birth control options that they find immoral.

Left entirely out of both men's speeches was any mention of opposing same-sex marriage, a major hobgoblin of the Family Research Council.  Cruz did say that Americans "stand for marriage" at one point, obviously sort of intended as a call to traditional values, but he went no further on the issue. According to the Associated Press, the "future of marriage" is the focus of a panel discussion there, and Tony Perkins, president of the FRC said that he thought that evangelical voters would still focus on issues like traditional marriage on Election Day.

It would silly to believe that Cruz and Paul are going to become major pro-gay-marriage conservatives. Cruz and Paul are both on the record as personally opposing same-sex marriage, but both prefer to leave the matter to the states. Paul would really like the GOP to kind of just leave it alone entirely, given that it's pretty much a settled issue for the growing millennial voting bloc, even for those who identify as Republicans. It's not a sign of a shift in belief that the two of them avoided one of the major issues the FRC exists to fight, but it may well be a sign that both realize it's not a position they can campaign on, even in front of a room of social conservatives.

Mediaite has both speeches posted. Watch Cruz here and Paul here.

NEXT: Mom Tells Therapist About Briefly Leaving Kids Alone, Shrink Calls Cops

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It would silly to believe that Cruz and Paul are going to become major pro-gay-marriage conservatives.

    I’d settle for them becoming major get-the-government-out-of-marriage conservatives.

    1. *whispers* Reason doesn’t want government out of marriage.

      1. You don’t have to whisper. Everybody knows.

      2. I don’t want it out of marriage either. They need to pass laws banning straight marriage now… for the children!

  2. I’m sure one or more concerned somebodies will be along to tell me how wrong I am, but I really couldn’t give a fuck less what happens at the value voters summit.

  3. Have they put the execrable Tony Perkins on suicide watch over this?

    1. Oh, for a second I was thinking of Tony Robbins…

      Carry on.

    2. I thought ass-sex killed Tony Perkins.

      [ducking]

  4. given that it’s pretty much a settled issue for the growing millennial voting bloc

    Sigh…

    1. Maybe Reason should take some type of “survey” with this particular generation that would in turn give us some kind of idea as to the…….

      …please kill me.

    2. Is it still growing? Anyone born before 1994 is already 18, after all. What’s the last birth year for being a millennial.

      1. Depends on who’s talking about it. Last birth year ranges from 1995 to 2004.

  5. “both prefer to leave the matter to the states. Paul would really like the GOP to kind of just leave it alone entirely”

    Uh, Rand Paul has two mutually-exclusive choices. He can have his party avoid the issue, *or* he can fight to keep the matter at the state level. If the Republicans interpose no objection, then the matter will be federalized and every state in the Union will be forced to recognize SSM. You can call this a good thing, you can call it a triumph of the forces of righteousness against the hosts of Satan, but you *can’t* call it “leaving it to the states.”

    Defending state prerogatives would require going out and *fighting* the SSM crowd, which wants nothing less than a national solution imposed on all states. Anyone who advocates federalism on this issue *will* be denounced as a retrograde hater who is out of touch with 77% of millennials (or whatever).

    So by all means talk up SSM, you can advocate surrender on this issue, but don’t fool yourself into thinking you’re leaving the matter up to the states.

    1. To my way of thinking, since the SSM crowd will lump advocates of federalism along with outright opponents of SSM, I would think there’d be nothing to lose in opposing SSM outright, since unless you want a national solution forced down the states’ throat, you’ll be treated as an SSM opponent in any case.

      1. since the SSM crowd will lump advocates of federalism along with outright opponents of SSM, I would think there’d be nothing to lose in opposing SSM outright

        If all your positions are based purely on tactical considerations rather than actual principals anyways.

        1. The post seems to suggest that “leaving it to the states” is some kind of viable moderate position, rather than a position in direct contradiction to the current thrust of the SSM movement.

          The SSM movement’s “federalism” arguments are so 2 years ago – now they’re all about a nationally imposed solution and all opponents of such a solution are morally equivalent to Fred Phelps.

  6. Has the FRC publically repudiated it’s calls for homosexuality to be illegal yet? Until it does it remains an organization that advocates violence toward homosexuals and anyone who is courting their support cannot legitimately claim to be “libertarian leaning”.

    1. Opposition to laws that require homosexuality to be considered normal does not equate to a call for it to be illegal, nor does it equate to a call for violence.

      1. Please see transcript below. They do call for it to be illegal.

  7. Is ‘bashing’ really the right word?

    I might be accused of being an uptight-editor… but:

    “rhetorically conflating people with “more-conservative opinions about homosexuality” with “beating the shit out of homos for fun”… strikes me as a little … well, ‘Salon-esque’.

    It is reminiscent of how the SJW crowd likes to label people “Rape-Apologists” for saying things like, ‘uh, maybe this ‘affirmative consent’-thing is a little much’…

    note: I’m not defending anyone’s SoCon positions; i’m just saying, ‘stay classy’, yo.

    1. having actually RTFA now… i retract the above point.

      well, mostly. Headlines still have a way of being ‘cited’ and then stories misconstrued.

      Speaking of Rand/Cruz slipperyness on socon issues… earlier this year (or last year?) engaged in some bible-beating over Prayer in schools, and how the terrorist Mooslims are killing christians, etc. … but translated both into, ‘this is why we need to keep the federal government out of our lives’…

      it was interesting. they seem to have figured out a way to pander to the basic ‘socon’ issues while redirecting those energies to a more ‘constitutionalist’ focus rather than culture-war Rabble-rousing.

      1. “they seem to have figured out a way to pander to the basic ‘socon’ issues while redirecting those energies to a more ‘constitutionalist’ focus rather than culture-war Rabble-rousing.”

        I don’t see a conflict.

        Traditionally, there was an alliance between the SoCon crowd and the limited-government crowd. Frank Meyer went further and said that the SoCon philosophy (as it’s called today) was so closely connected to the libertarian philosophy that they were part of the same thing.

        Whether you agree with the above points or not, there’s certainly a better record of cooperation between libertarians and SoCons than between libertarians and hipster John Stewart fans.

      2. bible-beating over Prayer in schools,

        To your first point, was he actually beating the bible?

        1. nice catch

          to be fair (to myself)…

          ‘bible-beating’ is an expression well understood as being ‘pro-religion’. No one has ever ‘pulled a Redskins’ AFAIK and claimed it was a ‘loaded term’.

          the association of ‘gay’ and ‘bashing’ doesn’t quite have the same flexibility.

          1. I think the term “bible-beating” is supposed to be interpeted as “beating people with a bible” rather than “beating the bible with one’s hand”.

            1. I think its an exaggeration of Bible thumping ie, people who tap or thump on the Bible while making points related to it.

            2. Or is it Bible Humping? I can never remember.

          2. Yeah, and if you don’t think its a derogatory term, you probably are already a member of Madalyn Murray O’Hare’s inner circle.

            1. “Stormy Dragon|9.26.14 @ 4:10PM|#

              I think the term “bible-beating” is supposed to be interpeted as “beating people with a bible” rather than “beating the bible with one’s hand”.”

              No – its actually distinctly the latter.

              “MegaloMonocle|9.26.14 @ 4:16PM|#

              Yeah, and if you don’t think its a derogatory term”

              I don’t.

              People who DO seem to be pricks, if you ask me – the type of people who use the same proggy rhetoric of claiming ‘there’s a War on Christians”…

              Is Bill O’Reilly a ‘militant atheist‘ for thinking the term is legit for describing particular rhetorical attitudes?

              1. The wikipedia page of religious slurs is woefully incomplete, but I did learn that “clamhead” is insulting to Scientologists.

                1. This idea that the term is now a “Slur” is exactly what I described above = a small group of people “pulling a Redskins”, and labeling what has been for most of a century a conventional term for ‘religious zealotry’ something ‘offensive’ to someone, somewhere… because even the *idea* that (gasp) anyone could be TOO enthusiastic about the per-eminence of the Word of God in daily affairs? UNPOSSIBLE

                  Everybody’s got to be a victim of something these days

                2. “SugarFree|9.26.14 @ 4:44PM|#

                  The wikipedia page of religious slurs is woefully incomplete”

                  I can imagine you could provide few dozen additions?

                  I am disappointed that I’ve been calling Muslims ‘moozies’ for a while now, and no one has rushed to condemn me for making light of towelheads in such a manner. Shame on me!

    2. FRC Policy Director Peter Sprigg:

      MATTHEWS: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?

      SPRIGG: Well, I certainly…

      MATTHEWS: I’m just asking you, should we outlaw gay behavior?

      SPRIGG: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.

      MATTHEWS: So, we should outlaw gay behavior?

      SPRIGG: Yes.

      MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you very much, Peter Sprigg. We know your position. It’s a clear one.

      1. But won’t somebody think of the cake makers?

        1. They’ve been outlawed.

        2. Not to worry, thom. The “activists” have already thought of the cake makers, and have a good start on their final solution for them.

          1. Speaking of Tony Perkins and bakers:

            I’m beginning to think, are re-education camps next? When are they going to start rolling out the boxcars to start hauling off Christians?

            So don’t worry, MM, the FRC got to Godwinning the shit out of that before you did.

      2. One person’s personal stance does not necessarily equate to the stance of the entire organization.

        1. It does when he’s the guy hired to direct that organization’s stances appearing specfically in his organizational role.

        2. The FRC lobbied (with $25k) to kill a House resolution condemning Uganda’s bill that made homosexual behavior a capital offense.

          1. Maybe sarc considers that one of those mythical “laws that require homosexuality to be considered normal”

            *Eyeroll*

          2. The Bible is perfectly clear what the its writers think the punishment for homosexuality should be. The FRC is perfectly clear that it considers the Bible the perfect and unalterable word of God.

            If the FRC thought they could get away with it, they’d be advocating the execution of homosexuals in the US too.

            1. The Bible is perfectly clear what the its writers think the punishment for homosexuality should be.

              [citation needed]

              In your response, make sure you consider dispensationalism and new covenant theories.

              1. “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” — Leviticus 20:13

                1. Okay, and now apply dispensationalism and new covenant theory.

                  1. It’s in the emanations cause like the bible is totaly a living document.

                    1. totaly a living document

                      Actually, that is pretty much exactly the point of dispensationalism.

                      Or, we could just say Dispensations are the amendment process.

                  2. I will give you a head start — consider Acts 10:9-16

                    1. Yes, I remember from Bible school, that’s the part that says Christians can pick and choose the commandments they want to follow as they become unfashionable.

                    2. Is there any indication that the FRC is made up of dispensationists?

                    3. Is there any indication that the FRC is made up of dispensationists?

                      Its pretty common across evangelical Christians. I dont know any of them in particular.

                    4. Its pretty common across evangelical Christians.

                      It’s part of the motte and bailey rhetorical tactics they love.

                    5. Romans 1:26-27

                      Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

                      I believe that’s the frequently relied upon verse to indicate that God’s NT persona is still cranky on gays.

                      While we may be in the “grace” dispensation now, not everyone is invested in that interpretation of the Bible. And some people are very selectively invested in that interpretation.

                    6. Also, when did this “grace” dispensation start? Executions for homosexuality were widespread until relatively recently. So was the church wrongfully murdering homosexuals for centuries or did this grace thing only start 100 or so years ago?

                    7. So was the church wrongfully murdering homosexuals for centuries

                      Yes.

                    8. Then why is it outrageous for me to suspect that many Christians still want to murder homosexuals, and merely refrain because they don’t think they can get away with it anymore?

                    9. Then why is it outrageous for me to suspect that many Christians still want to murder homosexuals, and merely refrain because they don’t think they can get away with it anymore?

                      Burn strawman burn.

                      Im just arguing that you need a citation that the Bible was “perfectly clear” on the punishment for homosexuals.

                      I think Ive proven it isnt perfectly clear. Game, set, match, you lose.

                    10. Also, when did this “grace” dispensation start?

                      I would think its clearly started as of the “He who is without sin cast the first stone” point. A jewish historian might possibly argue a much earlier point, but by that point, its clear.

                    11. I want denying that God is still “cranky on gays”. Im saying the NT dispensation gets rid of the whole killing them thing.

                    12. Im saying the NT dispensation gets rid of the whole killing them thing.

                      I agree with your interpretation of the Bible here, but I think Stormy is correct that the FRC would be perfectly ok with Patriarchal Law for the homos and grace for people they find less objectionable, and I think they would view that as Biblical governance.

                    13. See my comment above. I wasnt arguing anything wrt the FRC.

      3. Was your ‘quote unvarnished by comment’ supposed to somehow be a response to something I said?

        I never said the FRC ‘wasn’t horrible’

        I said using the term ‘bashing’ seemed a fairly lowbrow rhetorical gimmick

        1. The FRC is in the “beating the shit out of homosexuals for fun” camp. Just because they prefer the shitbeaters to be government employees doesn’t change the nature of their position.

          1. “The FRC is in the “beating the shit out of homosexuals for fun” camp”

            Camp? They have camps for that now?

            I’m not kidding when i say this is ‘Salon-esque’ style reportage

            Are you unaware that this kind of rhetorical conflation of ‘conservatism’ with ‘advocating violence’… is exactly the sort of thing Progs use to label people like Rand, “Racist” for having once spoken positively about ‘freedom of association’?

            i can personally find the positions of these people reprehensible without requiring a 2-mins hate, spitting at the very mention of their name.

            i can also accept Rand Paul trying to find an angle that appeals to them in some way without openly condemning them for daring to holding impolitic views.

            1. The fact the charges of racism are sometimes unfounded does not make all charges of racism false.

              1. are you saying, “Rand is also racist”?

                please just speak plainly.

                1. No, I was continuing your metaphor. What I’m saying is that the FRC has actually advocated violence toward homosexuals. Even if that charge is often used spuriously, in this case it’s accurate.

                  And it disturbs me the Rand is willing to pander to that.

                  1. Politician panders to extremists! Film at 11.

                  2. Fine.

                    The degree of ‘threat’ such pandering actually represents i would argue is substantially lower than that of, say, Democrats pandering to the Climate Change marchers who openly speak in favor of ENDING CAPITALISM

                    meaning = there is no real threat of political traction for the anti-gay right in the mainstream. By contrast, the Anti-Capitalist left will spout the most open-minded rhetoric in the world, all while pushing actual legislation that severely undermines economic freedom.

                    I think if you’re going to be ‘outraged’, be outraged by shit that is actually a real threat.

  8. Doesn’t “Value Voters Summit” sound like it means it’s cut-rate?

    1. I KNOW WHAT YOU’RE THINKING = HOW COULD PRICES BE THIS LOW???!! THEY MUST BE CRAZY?! CRAZY WITH *QUALITY!* AND THERE’S MORE: ACT NOW, AND WITH YOUR VOTE YOU’LL ALSO RECEIVE THIS SET OF PARING KNIVES – a $19.99 VALUE

  9. So the GOP candidates are acknowledging the country has bigger fish to fry than who’s entitled to a wedding cake? We’ll just see about that.

  10. Can 3 males marry one another?

    Perhaps a mother can marry her daughter?

    If not, why not?

    1. You’d cry if you knew how few shits I give about either of those. Now, can the government force me to acknowledge their marriage or take part in the wedding? That’s a different story.

    2. Can 3 males marry one another?

      I’m assuming you mean should they be allowed to? Yes.

      Perhaps a mother can marry her daughter?

      Is her daughter of consenting age? If so, then alright, if that is their thing.

    3. All of those sound ridiculously hot. So yes.

    4. Can 3 males marry one another?

      Perhaps a mother can marry her daughter?

      Yes and yes.

      Now, can they get a state license for those marriages? No. Why not?

      Because the mantra of “any two adults” (coined within the last few years) is apparently the last and final word, ever on what marriages should be allowed by the Almighty State. Just ask our new experts on marriage, who are adamant that gay marriage in no way whatsoever opens the door to multiple marriages or anything other than two gay people getting married in a fabulous ceremony with a cake produced under duress.

      1. Just ask our new experts on marriage, who are adamant that gay marriage in no way whatsoever opens the door to multiple marriages or anything other than two gay people getting married in a fabulous ceremony with a cake produced under duress.

        Actually, gays were adamant that they weren’t fighting other people’s battles. It’s the pants-wetters that went down that slippery slope.

        1. gays were adamant that they weren’t fighting other people’s battles

          This is clearly false, as they were always fighting at least one other person’s battle.

          1. I think you know what I mean. Gays were not fighting for any of the slippery-slope horrors that socons are now conjuring up. They were fighting for state-recognition of marriage between two same-sex adults – that is it.

            1. But that is never the way the law works.

              “But we didnt want to allow Nazis to be able to parade!” Well, too damn bad, when you support freedom of assembly that is what you get.

              1. Bad analogy. The horrors are still not legal anywhere I know of in the US – and you can’t twist the law to make it so.

                1. you can’t twist the law to make it so.

                  Like hell I cant. If I was a judge and had the gay marriage decisions as precedent I had to follow, I would allow polygamy.

                  If the government cant define marriage, it cant define marriage.

  11. …both prefer to leave the matter to the states.

    I would prefer to leave the matter to the various churches and religions, since marriage is a religious sacrament. Why is the government at any level involved in religious matters?

    1. People here think Im crazy for claiming that government licensing of marriage violates the first amendment.

      1. It violates a lot of contract law, as far as I’m concerned. But some may disagree.

      2. I think you’re exactly right, but crazy for other reasons.

        1. I agree entirely with this.

    2. Marriage is waaay older than religion or gov’t. Older than Homo sapiens, even.

  12. Wow, Rick Santorum has gone full-on theocrat –

    Liberty and virtue are connected.

    Tradition and liberty are connected.

    This country needs a revival.

    The First Amendment isn’t about keeping religious people out of government, it’s about keeping government out of religion.

    Protect the unborn. Respect life from the not-yet-born to life’s last breath. I’m one who *will* march for life.

    Acknowledge the Supreme Being in our classrooms.

    “We as Christians”

    Wait, that wasn’t Rick Santorum…OMG, it was Rand Paul!

    Well, he probably didn’t mean it.

    1. You forgot that he’s also Pro-intervention for killing the terrorist muzzies.

      Despite this, Real Libertarians? like Bo are able appreciate his finer qualities, while simultaneously identifying the fatal flaws in more ostensibly moderate people like you or i. We lack his acuity of insight, apparently.

    2. I’ll readily call out Paul when I think he’s wrong, but even out of context, only 1.5 of these seem objectionable to me.

      1. Just watch the video tonight in lieu of “Game of Zombies” or whatever you kids are into nowadays. See which parts, if any, I’ve taken out of context.

        And I didn’t even mention the part about the War on Christians.

        1. I’m going to see a hipster band from Seattle tonight. Dinner will be pizza with lots of locally sourced ingredients and craft beer.

      2. To wit:

        Liberty and virtue are connected.

        I agree with him on that.

        Tradition and liberty are connected.

        Insofar as there is a tradition of liberty, I agree with him on that.

        This country needs a revival.

        I agree with him on that.

        The First Amendment isn’t about keeping religious people out of government, it’s about keeping government out of religion.

        I agree with him on that, though there is a hint of implication that the 1A only works one way. It can’t keep religious people out of government, but it is supposed to keep religion out of justification for laws and government power.

        Protect the unborn. Respect life from the not-yet-born to life’s last breath. I’m one who *will* march for life.

        I’m not going to derail the thread. We all know the various stances on this issue among libertarians.

        Acknowledge the Supreme Being in our classrooms.

        That one certainly sounds bad out of context.

        “We as Christians”

        Pretty sure he is Christian, so it is hardly surprising he would use an inclusive pronoun.

        1. Wow, you just made it sound much less scary, thanks a lot for ruining the effect!

          1. I’m not really sure what effect you were going for.

      3. I think for me the more important point would be along the lines of:

        “who in my lifetime has been more responsible for erosion of the constitution: ‘social conservatives’, or ‘progressive liberals'”?

        There’s no contest.

        I don’t have the same passion for issues like Abortion that others have (*my personal view is that law is mostly settled in favor of choice, and that the politics surrounding it are mostly on the margins now); i don’t fear the ‘creationism in the classroom’ bullshit either, because it mostly affects small communities who will end up suffering for their anti-science views in the marketplace anyway.

        I can’t think of anything that Cultural Conservatives really present in terms of *real threat*, no matter how vile their views are

        (this here being a key example – no matter how gross the FRC, to me they are just malcontents who want to hold a reactionary view which is in no danger of ever being given force of law)

        by contrast, progs actually want to pass laws NOW shredding the protections in the bill of rights. First: regulate political speech! next: whatever they want.

        1. I agree, and I’ll add that the whole creationism in the classroom thing is blown way out of proportion. Especially considering the schools still teach the planetary model of atoms, keynesian economics(if any) and outright statism.

          1. Planetary model of atoms is horribly wrong.

            Teaching it is fundamentally worse than creationism.

            1. Calling it horribly wrong is exaggeration for several reasons:

              1) There are aspects of it that are wrong, but there are aspects that are correct.

              2) As a toy model it simplifies a lot of calculations. High schoolers aren’t going to be learning Schrodinger’s equation.

              2) I’ve never heard of it being taught outside of a historical narrative that acknowledges its flaws but uses it as a way of easing the introduction to orbital theory.

              Creationism has nothing going for it scientifically. It is far worse to teach creationism than the planetary model of the atom.

              1. And even if there are classes that teach the planetary model as being the truly correct atomic model and never get into orbitals, that still isn’t as wrong as creationism.

                1. Creationism (not the YE variety) has the possibility going for it that it might be true.

                  The planetary model of atoms doesnt have that. Hence, is worse.

                  1. The theory that “every thing that happens in the universe completely at random and the appearance of stable laws is just a result of us having gotten REALLY lucky up until now” MIGHT be true too. It would also be completely useless because it provides no testable predictions of future phenomenon.

                    The creationist’s “a wizard did it” theory suffers from the same flaw.

                    1. Not the same. The scientific claim is “we don’t know yet.”

                  2. Your going to be a lot more specific when you use the term creationism. I’ve never heard that term applied to anything but a literal interpretation of Genesis.

                    And as I said, the planetary model is still a useful toy model for doing calculations (that gives the right answer in many situations) and as a stepping stone to introducing more complex theories.

                    1. ^^ You’re going to need to be…

                    2. In the most general, its any concept that the universe was created by some extrauniversal entity, God or whatever.

                    3. OK, but that is not how it is typically used. And even allowing for that broader definition, creationism still doesn’t fall under the definition of science, as that entity would still be considered supernatural.

                      And that isn’t to say that multiverse and other pre-Big Bang ideas rise to the level of valid scientific theories. They speculation and don’t make testable predictions, yet. Maybe they never will. But they don’t invoke supernatural causes either. They at least attempt to work within a framework of physical laws.

                    4. creationism still doesn’t fall under the definition of science

                      well, yeah.

        2. “who in my lifetime has been more responsible for erosion of the constitution: ‘social conservatives’, or ‘progressive liberals'”?

          There’s no contest.

          No kidding.

          Yet the Reason stable of writers is pretty unanimous that our true allies all lie on the left, not the right, of the current political spectrum.

        3. I don’t think it’s about the social conservative being a direct threat to liberty, as it is learning the lesson of the TEA Party. They did nothing to counter the religious loonies and ended up having nitwits like Bachmann and Cuccinelli get tromped by Democrats.

          Those who are religious and committed to liberty should revile the theocrats just as much as the atheists do.

          1. I will True Scotsman that and say that they do.

            1. But the corollary is that if they don’t revile them, then they are only paying lip service to liberty. I see a lot of people bending over backwards to defend a group that would cheerfully make homosexual acts a crime if they had the political capital.

              As always, you are a true scotsman, KYbro.

              1. My Irish ancestry is demanding your death.

                1. You have just internalized the false rivalry the English foster to keep you squabbling among each other and not plotting against the true enemy.

        4. It wouldn’t surprise me if many 19th century classical liberals looked at early progressives and the forebearers of the communists and socialists and thought that they were too crazy and insignificant to pose any real threat.

          1. This seems astoundingly ignorant of the actual trends throughout the 20th century, which show the cultural conservatives to be in long-term decline…

            Is the idea we’re supposed to be in perpetual outrage until no reactionary voices exist *at all*?

            1. No, but Social Conservatives are still a significant voting block and I absolutely think the GOP could pass some shitty laws if they happened to get control of Congress and had the right president. I agree with you that progressives are a more immediate problem, but I’m not ready to write off the t Social Conservatives entirely.

              1. ” I’m not ready to write off the Social Conservatives entirely.”

                Sorry, I thought that’s exactly what this thread was about =

                – Rejecting SoCon votes as ‘undesirable’

                Do i think they’re “more trouble than they’re worth”, in that the ‘cost’ of appealing to them results in either lost-votes elsewhere, or in empowering a reactionary cultural minority in some way?

                not really, but that part is certainly more debatable than simply assuming the the case one way or the other.

                1. By write them off, I meant write them off as a problem.

                  1. No, I know.

                    I was saying, “how seriously one considers them ‘a problem'” does inform the view how relevant they are as a voting bloc.

  13. Gay marriage will be legal nationwide before the presidential election. I do hope someone asks the nominees whether they agreed with what will be the supreme court’s decision.

    1. I think you mean:

      “The Supreme Court will mandate that every state in the union license gay marriage, regardless, and will do so in a way that sets the stage for extending privileges to gay people as a “protected class”.”

      I’m not aware of any law that would criminalize gay marriage. I’m only aware of states that refuse to license gay marriage. There’s a difference, unless you are a Total State fascist.

      1. Let’s just pick one, Wisconsin:

        “Any person residing and intending to continue to reside in this state who goes outside the state and there contracts a marriage prohibited or declared void under the laws of this state can be fined up to $10,000 and imprisoned for up to 9 months.”

      2. It’s so interesting. You’ve got to know you lost this. Right? That you can accomplish absolutely nothing except making yourself look like a whining bigot?

        But since you seem so confused, let me clarify. The court will not grant gay married couples superior rights to those offered straight married couples. They will declare that under the US constitution it is impermissible for states to treat straight and gay couples differently with respect to marriage laws.

        1. Are you married, Tony?

          1. No, my state forbids it in law.

            1. For purpose of clarity =

              are you saying you are not married BECAUSE you lack the legal means to do so?

              Or you don’t actually personally want to get married….and its just coincidentally ‘forbidden by law’ as well?

              1. For the moment, B.

                I cannot envision a scenario in which I’d want to get married, but weird things happen to people when they get older.

                1. “For the moment, B.

                  I cannot envision a scenario in which I’d want to get married, but weird things happen to people when they get older.

                  That makes sense. Thanks.

                  out of curiosity – does Rand’s ‘let the states decide’ cop-out present any significant influence either way towards voting for him?

                  (*i note: democrat politicians, despite rhetoric, haven’t really done much to repeal DOMA, and let the courts do the work for them)

                  also – and just an aside: I checked, and Oklahoma’s statutory ban was actually overturned and is now in appeal.

                  IOW, it looks it will be legal sooner* rather than later

                  (*pun intended)

                  1. does Rand’s ‘let the states decide’ cop-out present any significant influence either way towards voting for him?

                    It should make anyone who remotely cares about civil rights reject him outright. Or anyone who cares about their president not being someone who lets Christian fundamentalists tell him what to pretend to think.

                    I actually know the plaintiffs in the Oklahoma case. I’m rooting for them to be chosen by the SC, but it probably won’t be for various reasons (unless all the various plaintiffs are grouped).

                    1. “It should make anyone who remotely cares about civil rights reject him outright”

                      which is odd, because his view is effectively indistinguishable from Obama’s before he was elected president.

                      Or did you not notice that?

                    2. ” not being someone who lets Christian fundamentalists tell him what to pretend to think.”

                      Did I mention the thing about Obama being a lot like Rand before he was elected already?

                    3. I don’t get why I’m supposed to choose the guy who hasn’t gotten there yet over the one who has.

                      The reason this is so is because Obama’s base is for the correct position and Paul’s base is for the incorrect one. We’re not just electing a president, but a worldview.

                    4. ” Obama’s base is for the correct position and Paul’s base is for the incorrect one. We’re not just electing a president, but a worldview.”

                      Obama’s position on gay marriage was that God Says No.

                      You’re saying, “what the candidate says is meaningless, because Liberals are always right, even when they lie?”

                      And similarly – it wouldn’t matter *what* Rand Paul actually said, because “Republican”?

                      Just trying to get clarity

                    5. Well yeah, if RP came out in favor of marriage equality, I’d give him props for bravery, but he is still a Republican. And he’d still be years behind Obama! Why does what RP might believe sometime in the future trump what Obama already does believe?

                    6. “Tony|9.26.14 @ 5:49PM|#

                      I don’t get why I’m supposed to choose the guy who hasn’t gotten there yet over the one who has.”

                      This is entirely unclear.

                      Obama, before he was elected, was *far more opposed* to gay marriage than Rand.

                      And even now, Obama has done little to nothing to further any federal repeal of DOMA. he effectively takes the same view as Rand – leave it to the states and courts.

                      There is no way you can spin any significant difference between the two unless you really are just saying, “it doesn’t matter, its about TEAM”

                    7. On the contrary, the only difference that matters is quite significant: one supports full equality and one doesn’t. If RP is able to catch up to Obama, good for him. If the past matters so much, it will be true that Obama went first.

                      Is it really RP’s position that if SCOTUS makes it nationally legal, that he’d be cool with that? Is he telling the Christians that? He must insist that it is constitutionally and morally required to have full equality nationwide. The stuff about states is, as you noted, weasel words.

                    8. Actually i think i was being unfair =

                      Obama was far more clearly against gay marriage on *religious grounds* than Rand, who is more-strictly constitutional in deferring to the states on the issue.

                      See, Obama 2006

                      “”(But) it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided, just as I cannot claim infallibility in my support of abortion rights.””

                      I think the key stylistic difference between himself and the FRC is that he *blames God* for making the call, and that he was, like Eichmann, just following orders at the time.

                    9. Why are you avoiding the issue that, right now, Obama has the correct position and Rand Paul doesn’t?

                      I must of course tolerate annoying appeals to deities from presidential candidates. Saying whether gay people should have equal rights under the law should be up to the states is clearly not the constitutional position.

                    10. ” Obama has the correct position and Rand Paul doesn’t”

                      How are they different?

                      Rand says leave it to the states; Obama is leaving it to the states.

                      There is no presidential initiative to repeal DOMA. He left it entirely to the supreme court and continues to.

                    11. “Tony|9.26.14 @ 5:54PM|#

                      Why are you avoiding the issue that…”

                      LOL

                      I may have made the mistake of thinking for once you were having an honest discussion.

                      Obama didn’t abandon his ostensible ‘opposition’ until after the 2012 election.

                      You basically voted for someone just like Rand twice. and it was no ‘threat to civil liberty’.

                      Just admit its ALL TEAM ALL THE WAY DOWN, and we can live happily ever after, because rhetorical games don’t get you anywhere.

                    12. When my team stops being consistently faster and better on these issues then I’ll stop supporting it. RP’s position is not the same as Obama’s no matter how many times you say so. Obama’s position is that gay marriage should be legalized nationwide. That is not RP’s position.

              2. There is no particular judgement either way, FWIW

                I’d compare it my own view of gun-rights

                I strongly support them – yet my own state is one of the most restrictive in the nation. And i don’t have any particular desire to move just to exercise that right.

  14. Yet strangely, gay marriage will still be The Most Important Issue Of Our Time and a reason to vote against Rand and Cruz, when the time comes.

  15. It’s too late. Both have already let their freak flags fly on these issues, and the Internet never forgets.

  16. Gay marriage still isn’t supported by the majority of Americans. Oh I know they have some biased polls that show otherwise but its been voted down damn near every time its put on the ballot. The other states have had courts FORCE them to recognize it. Quite frankly I’m sick of people thinking they can just arbitrarily change the definition of words in our society. Marriage is between a man and a woman, its not mentioned at all in the constitution, which means see 10th amendment, rights left to STATES AND PEOPLE. The PEOPLE in the STATES voted for CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS banning it. These are not the same as LAWS banning it passed by the legislature, like polygamy and incest marriages. These are constitutional amendments, that followed the processes and procedures the states have put in place to amend their respective constitutions, and they did so. At this point no court can come in and say “that constitutional amendment is unconstitutional” they have to pass an amendment amending the original amendment. Kinda like the 21st amendment nullified the 18th amendment.

  17. I used to say I believed in left-libertarianism, because I thought “we can get the left to accept the free market sooner than we can get the right to accept gay marriage.”

    Man, got that 100% wrong, didn’t I?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.