Gay Marriage

Conservative Group So Terrified of Gay Republicans They're Endorsing Democrats

|

Carl DeMaio

Democratic partisans are probably concerned at what might happen if the Republicans get over and get past their anti-gay history (though they'll never actually admit it). Just think of the votes they might lose! Fortunately for them, a political organization has been spending thousands to help out the Democrats in San Diego and Massachusetts to try to stop a couple of gay Republicans from getting voted into office. That group is the well-known anti-gay National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

Desperate for some sort of win—any sort of win—as the entire reason for their existence (stopping same-sex marriage recognition) slips further and further out of their grasp, they are spending thousands on robocalls in opposition to the congressional candidacies of Carl DeMaio in San Diego and Richard Tisei in Massachusetts. Mind you, both of the these men's Democratic opponents, Rep. Scott Peters and Seth Moulton, also support same-sex marriage recognition (Moulton even has a gay brother), but at least they're not a couple of filthy homos, I guess is the message.

Richard Tisei

Actually, the message from NOM is that—given the Republican control of the House of Representative (and there's no chance of that changing in this election)—voting DeMaio and Tisei into office rather than pro-gay heterosexual Democrats is worse because the Republicans actually will have power. Here's what NOM is saying when it encourages voters to select traditional progressive Moulton over business-friendly moderate Republican Tisei:

The Republican party states clearly in its platform that marriage is the union of one man and one woman; Tisei, according to the hopes of his supporters, would work to undermine and change this platform conviction from within the party itself.

On the other hand, Tisei's opponent, Seth Moulton, is no better than Tisei on the issues. But as a Democrat in a House controlled by Republicans, Moulton wouldn't be able to impact anything. Furthermore, we could defeat him in two years. Tisei, however, as a Republican within a Republican-controlled House of Representatives, would be in a position to do great damage to the integrity of the party's platform and the pro-life and pro-family policies for which the party stands!

Italics in the original. Moulton is obviously rejecting NOM's support:

"Seth Moulton fundamentally disagrees with everything NOM stands for and has long said that equality is the civil rights fight of our generation," said Carrie Rankin, Moulton's communications director. "Fighting against groups, like NOM, that deny equality as a basic human right will be a priority of Seth's in Congress." Rankin noted that Moulton has a gay brother and Moulton has said, "It's fundamentally wrong that he and I don't share the same rights just because of who he is."

If Tisei and DeMaio help kick any anti-gay planks out of the Republican Party's national platform, NOM is going to end up completely marginalized. Both races, though, are extremely close in the polls. DeMaio and Tisei both barely have the edge in recent polls and both races are classified as toss-ups. I'll be keeping an eye out on these two battles come Tuesday.

NEXT: Chuck Hagel Says We Haven't Had Enough War Yet

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. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! TEH GEYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. This is what Libertarians do or always threaten to do. Why can’t these people do the same thing? The Republicans don’t own their votes anymore than they own Libertarians votes. If the Republicans want to sell out on what they consider to be an important issue, then they have every right to vote for the Democrat. Indeed, gun owners do this all of the time. And it is why they are such a powerful interest group. They don’t just support an issue, they vote on it.

    Watching Reason bitch and moan because some group won’t suck it up and vote Republican even though the GOP candidate sells out something they consider to be important is getting pretty damned close to peak irony.

    1. I agree I just think it’s just a retarded hill to die on.

      1. You don’t agree with them. But the problem is their views not that they have the nerve to expect a political party to actually represent their interests in return for their votes.

        The entire tone of this post is Shackelford’s shock and displeasure that these people actually think they have a right to expect their politicians to support their views. Expecting to have a voice in politics is for Shackelford apparently something only right thing people can have. This idiot hillbillies need to know their place and shut up and stay out of it.

        1. Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said any of that.

          1. Don’t worry about it, Scott. John is 100% principal over principle. He has decided he doesn’t like you, or at least some guy named Shackelford, so it’s gonna be all straw man all the time.

            1. No I am not Brandon. If you are unable to understand my principles, well that is your problem. All I can do is my best to explain them. Beyond that, your problem is more likely not that you don’t understand but that you don’t like the points I make but can’t really think how to refute them. So, you just mutter something about how I have no principles. Whatever works for you Brandon.

              1. We don’t understand your principles because you have none John.

            2. Shackleford. Rusty Shackleford.

              1. Holy crap – Scott is actually Dale Gribble?

              2. Ernest. He’s a hero.

          2. If that wasn’t your point, then why do you care what NOM is doing here? Moreover, why do you put such a snarky and dismissive headline? They are not “afraid of gays”. They object to gay marriage and don’t think the GOP is entitled to their support without representing their interests.

            You could say the exactly the same thing about Libertarians. They are so afraid of social conservatives they are willing to help a progressive win. And indeed, when people say that about Libertarians they object saying the GOP doesn’t own their votes. Well they don’t. And the GOP doesn’t own these people’s votes either. Sucks to be the GOP I guess.

            1. You don’t find NOM’s strategy a bit odd and surprising? Isn’t that alone enough reason to put up a quick blog post?

              1. Not really. It just means they might be getting smarter.

          3. John might qualify as a “conservative terrified by gay republicans” himself, so you may have hurt his wittle feelings regardless of what you actually wrote.

            1. How am I terrified of gays? Would you like to point out exactly what views I express causes you to think that?

              As far as I know the only position I take counter to gays is that I don’t think they should be able to use the courts to force people to recognize their marriages and sue anyone who doesn’t out of business.

              Does that position terrify you so much that it causes you to conclude anyone who takes it must be afraid of gays?

              1. You have routinely referred to things like “the gay mafia” and shit like that. If you aren’t afraid of them, you sure have a problem with them regardless. Even if you don’t have a problem with individual gays, you clearly have a problem with the “gay collective” that lives in your head. Your insanely overwrought response to any fucking article about gays is perfect evidence of that.

                1. You have routinely referred to things like “the gay mafia” and shit like that.

                  No I haven’t. I cannot recall ever using that term. I am serious. If I did, I would admit to as much. And if I have, go find a post where I have. You are confusing me with someone else.

                  I have, however, said that the gay rights movement has been co-opted by fascist Progressive and is no longer about gay rights and is about using gay rights as a club against the Progs’ enemies. And that is largely true. The Progs don’t care about gays or marriage. They just want a way to criminalize their opponents. If gay marriage didn’t do that, they wouldn’t be supporting it and they will never support it in any way that would prevent that.

                  Even if you don’t have a problem with individual gays, you clearly have a problem with the “gay collective” that lives in your head.

                  Really? I don’t see that. I have a problem with the the law being used as a way to effectively criminalize religious belief. That is my problem. And I am sorry, I don’t excuse the people who support that law just because they claim to not really want the very foreseeable consequences of it becoming reality.

                  1. I thought you had used that term (gay mafia), but if you didn’t, I apologize.

                    1. No worries. And who knows maybe I did. But if I did, I don’t remember it.

              2. As far as I know the only position I take counter to gays is that I don’t think they should be able to use the courts to force people to recognize their marriages

                No you want to use courts to force businesses and government not to recognize their marriages.

                and sue anyone who doesn’t out of business.

                Yes you keep that strawman close. You can have gays “marrying” legally without violating a business owner’s freedom of association, which is a separate issue.

                Does that position terrify you so much that it causes you to conclude anyone who takes it must be afraid of gays?

                No you fear that they might use the word “marriage” to describe their contractual relationship since you and your congregation claim some sort of monopoly over it’s use.

                1. No you want to use courts to force businesses and government not to recognize their marriages.

                  That is just idiotic and not true. Any business is and should be free to recognize any marriage they want. Go find one place where I have ever said businesses should be prohibited from recognizing gay relationships. You won’t find one because none such post exists. I don’t believe that and never have.

                  Yes you keep that strawman close. You can have gays “marrying” legally without violating a business owner’s freedom of association, which is a separate issue.

                  Sure we can. And that is why I have always supported gay marriage through state by state legislation not by judicial mandate. I have argued this again and again and never once on this forum said otherwise.

                  No you fear that they might use the word “marriage” to describe their contractual relationship since you and your congregation claim some sort of monopoly over it’s use.

                  No I don’t. I couldn’t care less about the word. I only care about people having the right to say otherwise. That is it.

                  Your problem is that you assume I believe things I clearly don’t and never have. You just can’t grasp the idea that someone could disagree with you for anything other than they must hate gays. That must be a sorry way to go through life.

                  1. Go find one place where I have ever said businesses should be prohibited from recognizing gay relationships.

                    The last time you said were opposed to gay marriage. This has the effect of excluding gay couples from many types of legal and financial instruments.

                    And that is why I have always supported gay marriage through state by state legislation not by judicial mandate.

                    Who are the state governments to regulate the relationships of free consenting individuals? Federal, state, local whatever, marriage is a private contract that no level of government has a right to control. Don’t act like you’re all of a sudden a federalist on the issue, you’ve repeatedly stated that you don’t like gays using the word “marriage” to describe their relationship because that oppresses you in some way you’ve never quite explained.

                    I only care about people having the right to say otherwise.

                    Supporting the legality of gay marriage is not the same thing as supporting that everyone should be compelled by law to offer affirmative recognition and accommodation. Hell I think businesses should be allowed to discriminate against religious people, or straight married couples or gay couples or anyone they want.

                    You just can’t grasp the idea that someone could disagree with you for anything other than they must hate gays.

                    No my claim is that you disagree with “gay marriage” for really no good reason.

                    1. The last time you said were opposed to gay marriage.

                      No I have never said that. I am opposed to court mandated government recognition of gay marriage. And moreover, even if I was opposed to all gay marriage that wouldn’t prohibit businesses from recognizing them. Businesses have been recognizing gay partnerships for years and giving them insurance benefits and such and I have no problem with that. You are mischaracterizing my position.

                      Who are the state governments to regulate the relationships of free consenting individuals?

                      The same way they regulate straight marriages. If you don’t like that, your problem is with marriage in general, which is a completely different issue than gay marriage.

                      Don’t act like you’re all of a sudden a federalist on the issue, you’ve repeatedly stated that you don’t like gays using the word “marriage” to describe their relationship because that oppresses you in some way you’ve never quite explained.

                      I will act exactly like that because that has always been my position. And if it is not, go find anywhere where it hasn’t been. And I have never once said gays using “marriage” is the problem. I just haven’t. And you provide no evidence that I have other than you just think I must. Well, for the second time, I do not object to gay marriage or gays calling themselves married. I never have.

                    2. Supporting the legality of gay marriage is not the same thing as supporting that everyone should be compelled by law to offer affirmative recognition and accommodation.

                      Sure it isn’t. And that is why I support doing it via legislation so the coercion doesn’t happen. If you however support gay marriage as a constitutional right under equal protection, you are supporting a position that will under the current legal regime result in coercion. If you don’t like that, do what I do and say it should be left up to the states to pass laws as they see fit rather than the courts.

                      No my claim is that you disagree with “gay marriage” for really no good reason.

                      Then stop saying I am against gays or prejudice. Second, try and understand that I don’t disagree with gay marriage. I disagree with saying government sanctioned gay marriage is a right mandated under the equal protection clause. There is a difference.

                  2. And that is why I have always supported gay marriage through state by state legislation not by judicial mandate.

                    John, here’s one of the two most powerful figures in NOM, Brian Brown, crying over the NY state legislature passing marriage equality in that state.

                    1. Yes Jessee, NOM doesn’t like gay marriage in general. I didn’t say agreed with them. I said they have every right to use their votes as they wish and Libertarians are hypocritical for saying otherwise.

                      I really couldn’t care less if New York wants to recognize gay marriage, provided it includes protection for religious expression. Maybe that law did. I don’t know.

                    2. they have every right to use their votes as they wish and Libertarians are hypocritical for saying otherwise

                      Who the hell said they couldn’t? It’s an interesting political development surrounding issues concerning libertarianism. Why shouldn’t Reason cover this? Do you really think that Shackford is saying the NOM should suck it up and vote for DeMaio? Or is he just drawing attention to some desperate flailing about concerning someone’s pet issue?

                    3. Who the hell said they couldn’t?

                      Everyone who described their actions as being childish and petulant and Scott when he put up the snarky headline.

                      Do you really think that Shackford is saying the NOM should suck it up and vote for DeMaio?

                      Yes. This post is Scott saying these people need to shut up and get with the program and stop voting on this issue.

                    4. I think you’re reading too much into it.

                    5. Eh, it was mostly an enjoyable opportunity to post a picture of the titular head of this organization proving that he’s a fascistic dick bag who hates gays so much that he literally wept when the democratic process provided exactly the same rights and responsibilities of state marriage to gays as it has to straights. Because that’s all it did.

                      I’m sure there were religious exemptions already embedded in previous marriage laws. “If it’s against your religion to marry an interracial or interfaith couple, don’t worry about it.”

        2. It’s funny, John. When someone is absolutely against the things you stand for, you take it personally and get all bunged up. All the time. Yet when people are literally against what Scott is himself–gay–you get all in his face as if him finding that obnoxious is some horrible crime, perpetrated against…you.

          You might want to step back and take a look at your own behavior before you go casting stones.

          1. Scott can get as bunged up as he wants. And I will do the same.

            Come on Epi, I do a lot of things, but stepping back isn’t one of them. If these people offend Scott, that is too fucking bad. A lot of things offend me too. That is the way life is. No one worries about my feelings so I don’t see why I should worry about theirs. The issues and the arguments are what they are feelings or no.

            1. There’s not stepping back–I get that–but there’s also being hypocritical. You routinely get pissed about how gays, as a collective, are attacking your lifestyle. I think that’s absurd, but that seems to be how you see it. Fine. But that means you are a douche if you give Scott shit for being annoyed with people who not only attack his lifestyle–you know, going to musicals, dressing up as Minnie Pearl, having brunch, etc–but his very self.

              You really need to take a look at how you behave, dude.

              1. First, it is not my lifestle. It is both funny and pathetic that people think that it is. You would think Libertarians of all people understand the idea that you could defend a group’s freedom without being a part of that group or really even liking that group. Ha fat chance. I defend the SOCONs so I must be one of them. I am anything but a SOCON. Do you ever read my posts on things like child pornography and drugs? They are anything but socially conservative. Call me what you like but I am just not that and if I were I would say so.

                You and I don’t always agree Epi. But you should know me well enough that whatever my flaws, I don’t pretend to be something I am not for the purpose of an argument.

                And the gays are not a threat to lifestyle of anyone. The problem is that the Progs are using gay marriage as a way to write out the religious freedom clause of the first amendment. Gay marriage isn’t about gays. The progs have co-opted the issue to make it about coercion.

              2. I can tell you what puts a bug up my ass about these sorts of issues Episiarch. It is not that I have any particular affinity towards SOCONS. It is that I have a natural disaffinity towards the mass culture.

                Right now the mass culture is that tolerance and diversity is the highest form of good with the single exception of the white evangelicals. They are the one group that it is always appropriate and desirable to ridicule and hate.

                That just bugs me. I can tolerate the craziest positions in people as long as they have those positions because they thought it through, even if their thinking is whacked. But what I am constitutionally incapable of tolerating is people who mindlessly go along with shit because they think it is cool or the mass culture tells them it is a way to single to the rest of the world how great they are. And that is mostly what goes on with regards to SOCONs. I just won’t tolerate it. Whether the SCONS are liable or not doesn’t matter to me. What matters is the mindless posing that goes on with the people attacking them.

                That more than anything makes me per-disposed to defend them more so than I would any other group.

              3. It’s not a lifestyle thing. John just hates that libertarians generally don’t vote Republican, so he considers it hypocrisy to point out another group that is daring to not vote Republican.

                1. Okay Brandon, how isn’t that hypocrisy? Yeah that is my entire point. You actually managed to understand something. Go get yourself a cookie.

                  And I don’t hate Libertarians who don’t vote Republican. I think they are often being foolish, but what business is that of mine?

                  I do however hate the hypocrisy of those very same Libertarians acting shocked when another group does the exact same thing, yes.

          2. I didn’t know Scott was gay. Is that common knowledge? I thought it was just John being butthurt that he dared to question “conservatives.”

            1. Welcome to Hit & Run!

              Yeah.

            2. Scott is gayer than two tons of drag queens racing in hooker boots.

              1. I didn’t know that was a unit of measurement for gay.

                1. They use a different measurement system in Europe.

              2. Scott is gayer than two tons of drag queens racing in hooker boots.

                Much less terrifying though.

              3. That could be “less” gay than you think.

            3. He doesn’t seem to mention his own gayness too often, but he has on occasion.

              I think some people are being a bit unfair to John. He apparently has a hard time getting that people can honestly support gay marriage while being opposed to public accommodation laws forcing people to do business with gays. But I’ve never seen any reason to believe that he is personally anti-gay or particularly socially conservative.
              He just has a bad habit of reading a lot of stuff into posts here that isn’t actually there.

              1. Zeb,

                I completely understand that people support gay marriage and oppose public accommodation. My problem is when they pretend that that somehow makes it okay for them to advocate for judicial action that everyone knows will result in coercion.

                The funny thing about your condescension is that you mistakenly describe my position as something I just can’t understand. I am the one who supports gay marriage and not public accommodation. That is why I wanted it done via legislation not judicial action. It is everyone else who can’t seem to grasp that doing it via judicial mandate means forcing public accommodation and therefor supporting that means is effectively supporting public accommodation no matter how hard you try to rationalize that it is not.

                1. Alright, that was a bit unfair on my part as well. You aren’t an idiot.

                  But I think you make a mistake in assuming that people are advocating for anything particular that is happening now. I can speak only for myself, but when I say that I think that gay marriage is an equal protection issue, I am making a comment on my view of what the constitution means and how it should affect current law. I’m not cheering all of the implications and likely outcomes of various court cases.

                  I’m not involved with politics outside from being an interested observer. I don’t care to be strategic in what I support or oppose. I’m just here to comment on current events and talk about how I think things should be.

                  1. It doesn’t matter if they are advocating it. When you advocate for a position that has real and forseable consequences, you are responsible for those consequences because either you like them or don’t consider them to be important enough to justify rejecting the policy. So the people who advocated for judicially mandated gay marriage don’t get to now claim that public accommodation is something they care about very much. Clearly they don’t or they wouldn’t have advocated what they did.

                    1. It is possible to have an opinion without being an advocate is all. I am in no way responsible for the outcomes from gay marriage cases. I had nothing to do with it. I’m not an activist or a lawyer or someone with standing to sue anyone over marriage laws.

                    2. You are not responsible Zeb. But if you consider them to be on the whole a good thing, then you don’t think public accommodation is much of a wrong and shouldn’t be allowed to claim otherwise.

                    3. There is also the third possibility that public accommodation is not going away, gay marriage or no. But we already got into that last week and don’t need to again. You can’t reduce everything to a binary choice.

                    4. That just means you consider gay marriage a greater good than forced accommodation is a bad, which is another way of saying you don’t care much about public accommodation.

            4. it may have been announced that Mr. Shackford was gay, but I tend not to pay much att’n to details like sexuality; maybe John’s like that too. OTOH, something drastic like Don McCloskey’s becoming Deirdre, yeah, that tends to stick in mind!

              1. Actually in general it takes me maybe twice as long as the avg. person associating any details about a particular person out of a group of them with that particular person (i.e. remembering who’s who). So I might’ve had it in the back of my mind that there was a gay guy among the bloggers, but it’d take a lot of repeating for me to remember which one it was and/or what that blogger tends to blog about. In general, I may be a people person, but I’m not a person person.

        3. Jesus Christ.

          His name is on the fucking byline.

          It’s right in front of you.

    2. Well, it’s not quite the same, is it? I mean, fine, they can do what they want, but it’s quite a leap to say that you so oppose homosexuality that you throw out your entire political philosophy. Or, perhaps, in actual practice the Republicans and Democrats aren’t so different. Maybe the two parties should gay-marry.

      1. Well, it’s not quite the same, is it? I mean, fine, they can do what they want, but it’s quite a leap to say that you so oppose homosexuality that you throw out your entire political philosophy.

        Libertarians do the exact same thing only from the opposite view all of the time. The Republican candidate for VA governor was better than the Dem in every single way accept for his position on culture war issues. Because of the Libertarians largely refused to vote for him. Again, that is their right and they wanted to send a message to the GOP that those issues are nonnegotiable. That is exactly what these people are doing.

        1. I don’t think that’s really true. Most libertarians who refer to themselves as libertarians and aren’t idiots totally misusing the term like Bill Maher vote–if they vote–on broader libertarian issues. I certainly do. I’m hardly going to vote for some guy because he’s pro some one social thing I care about if he’s otherwise a statist.

          The flip side is that I don’t like voting for Republicans who are statists, even when they say a few things I do like. The issue is the embracing of the Total State. GOP candidates who don’t do that–and there are a decent minority of those–do often get my vote.

        2. Libertarians do the exact same thing only from the opposite view all of the time.

          I don’t know about the exact same thing. Here, NOM seems to be asking people to vote for someone who doesn’t support their agenda at all simply because of the party they belong to.
          A libertarian voting for a candidate who definitely won’t win because they actually agree with them on a lot of things is an almost entirely different thing. If you think that your single vote sends a message to anyone, you are a dope. You need to consider that alot of people don’t make strategic considerations when voting. A lot of people just vote for the candidate they most agree with. Not voting for the Republican is not the same as supporting the Democrat.

          1. Zeb,

            If you think a block of people voting on a single issue and being willing to vote for the other side if their side doesn’t go along is pointless, you are a dope. This is what makes gun owners such a powerful force. Politicians know they will vote for the other party for the single purpose of punishing a politician who sells out gun rights. And it doesn’t matter which party the politician is in.

            1. Of course that can be effective.

              The problem I have is with considering every vote strategically.

              Why aren’t people allowed to just vote for the candidate they think is best without it being considered a “protest vote”?

              1. They can. It is just a question of what issues you consider nonnegotiable.

                For me most issues are and I will vote for the least bad candidate. The one exception to that is gun rights. I wont’ vote for a gun controller under any circumstances ever and will always vote for their opponent no matter how bad their opponent is. That is because for me gun rights is all things being equal more important than any other issue.

    3. I don’t vote for people who are very unlibertarian in order to prevent somebody else who is also very unlibertarian from getting elected.

      1. Also, I’m not bitching and moaning. I mean, jeez.

      2. I don’t vote for people who are very unlibertarian in order to prevent somebody else who is also very unlibertarian from getting elected.

        Good for you. A lot of Libertarians do or they choose to vote for a third party whom they know has no shot at winning as a protest vote. These people don’t have the option of the third party. So they are voting strategically. They know they are not going to like whoever wins. But they figure if the Republican loses, the Republicans won’t take their votes for granted and will be forced to put up a more acceptable candidate.

        This is absolutely no different than what Libertarians are constantly preaching about GOP candidates. It is just someone you don’t like doing it, as if they unlike you owe their votes to the GOP.

        1. Yes, they certainly have a right to be wrong and stupid, and I am going to point out how wrong and stupid they are.

          In no part of this blog post did I ever suggest that NOM should be prevented or prohibit from engaging in this behavior or that is somehow ethically or even morally wrong. But I will judge them as stupid assholes for doing it.

          1. Why are they stupid assholes? And if they are why aren’t Libertarians just as big of assholes?

            I get it that you don’t agree with their position. But what is your problem with their tactics? If you think they are stupid assholes for not being for gay marriage, why didn’t you write a post saying so? I don’t see how anyone at Reason can claim that refusing to vote for the GOP because they have sold out your pet issue makes you a stupid asshole.

            1. The Democrats aren’t any better on their pet issue, John. This isn’t a principled stance, it’s a temper tantrum.

              1. No. Its strategic voting. It is no different than voting for a protest candidate or not voting. It is all not voting for the GOP because they sold out an important issue. It is what Libertarians do all of the time and they have no right to complain when other groups do it.

            2. Why are they stupid assholes? And if they are why aren’t Libertarians just as big of assholes?

              Single issue partisans that focus on non-issues, like someone else’s relationship, often get that reputation.

              1. I get it Free Society. Its okay when you do it. That is really all you are saying. Libertarians are good SOCONS are bad so these sorts of tactics are only proper when used by Libertarians.

                1. Look at that straw man burn!

            3. To be fair, we Libertarians ARE giant assholes.

            4. Did he say he has a problem with their tactics? I think he is saying that they are stupid assholes because of what they think about gay people and gay rights.

              I just don’t know what you are getting at here. Reason is covering the election. Part of that is looking at novel and unusual tactics in the campaign.

    4. Why can’t these people do the same thing?

      Well, they clearly can. Who says they can’t?

      1. Obviously, criticizing them for picking a stupid hill to die on is a big deal.

        So which is it John? Do you want more libertarians to vote GOP or do you want the GOP to become more libertarian?

  3. Yeah, I heard about this. People are weird, eh?

    *shrugs shoulders*

    1. “eh?”

      *squints suspiciously at Almanian!*

      That was awfully Canadian of you.

      1. TO THE PITCHFORK DISPENSERS!

  4. Tisei, according to the hopes of his supporters, would work to undermine and change this platform conviction from within the party itself

    ZOMG they might make our platform align more closely with mainstream Americans!!

  5. Mainstream LGBT activists also tell us not to vote for gay Republicans. Strange bedfellows indeed.

  6. Are these the Republicans who love to hate on fiscal conservatives for trying to cut spending?

    1. You know, the Democrats’ primary strategy in places like California is to distract voters away from things like overtaxation and overspending with issues like gay rights…

      “Actually, the message from NOM is that . . . voting DeMaio and Tisei into office rather than pro-gay heterosexual Democrats is worse because the Republicans actually will have power.”

      …which is to say, these people are doing the Democrats’ work for them. They’re implementing the Democrats’ strategy against Republicans from within the Republican Party, which means, yeah, they’re strategically worse for Republicans than the Democrats!

      1. Right now, I have no clue why any Republican would take social issue bait. Not when they can easily attack almost everything else the Democrats are doing.

        1. It goes to show…

          Our current batch of politicians won’t do things like really cut spending until there’s absolutely nothing else they can do.

          Until the Republicans in the House replace John Boehner with a fiscal conservative, we know that they aren’t really serious about cutting spending.

          …and there are reasons for that. In the South, in urban districts with more Democratic support, you can win elections with wedge issues. That Terry Schaivo thing seemed like a stupid reaction to reasonable people everywhere, but it was also a big wedge issue–that worked!

          It’s not like those culture war Republicans can get much resonance out of bashing on Muslims right now. Their constituents don’t want to invade Iraq or Syria, right now–so what else are they supposed to talk about?

          They’d rather legalize marijuana than cut spending, but legalizing marijuana doesn’t go over well with their culturally conservative constituents in the South either.

          1. This country is either going to catch on and realize that Leviathan needs to be sliced and diced, or we’re going to continue to quibble about ghafla while America burns.

            In other words, it’s not about issues and voting blocks. It’s about a nation either fundamentally believing in limited government, individual freedom, and free markets, or not. Right now, it’s more not.

            1. I don’t think people see it in fundamental terms like that, but I think there is going to be a clear choice in the upcoming presidential election–if we can get Rand Paul on the Republican ticket.

              Rand Paul is going to have to get nominated by the same people this anti-gay rights group is gunning for, though. Rand Paul was really smart to be pro-life, reluctantly where he is on gay marriage, etc. You can’t get these people’s support without being on the “right” side of those issues…

              Once he’s president, I expect him to pay about as much attention to the cultural conservatives as Ronald Reagan did–by which I mean, I don’t expect him to pay any attention to the cultural conservatives at all.

              Right now, Hillary is running to the left of Liz Warren–because that’s what you have to do to win the nomination on that side of the aisle.

              http://online.wsj.com/articles…..1414712886

              1. If you look back at the 19th century, people would regularly oppose federal involvement in things on principle. For instance, when they tried to do things like centralize science and technology research, people fought like the dickens to stop it, just on the grounds that the government had no power to do such things.

                That’s the kind of thing that used to be embedded in our culture. Now it’s almost a fringe viewpoint. Until that changes, we’ll do no better than slow the car as it drives towards the cliff.

                1. There are still people who think like that.

                  I think like that. You think like that. And we’re not the only ones.

                  There’s still hope.

                  It helps if people see what merely competent government looks like, again. Over the last 14 years, people have become accustomed to extremely incompetent government–they don’t remember what it was like when the government wasn’t run by completely incompetent people.

                  I think that’s part of the reason why people think gay marriage bans are reasonable–and cutting spending is just crazy talk. There needs to be a counter example to that. When there is, there will be a lot more people who think like we do.

                  Evolution works like that with mindless insects, even. People go with what works. They had less of a chance, lately, to see how freedom works. People in the 19th Century had the benefit of some counter examples, too.

                  It’s easy to see how much better freedom is when there are so many people that were either slaves or ex-slaves around. Even in the 20th Century, it was easier to see how much better freedom works out for people when the Soviets, the Mao cult, the Imperial Japanese, and the Nazis are providing counter examples.

                  We have to live without the “benefit” of those easy counter examples, now–thank God! So we have to show them the right way by providing positive examples…

                  1. We couldn’t do that with Obama or Bush in the White House. If we get Rand Paul in the White House, people will see the light again. We have the advantage of being right about what makes people prosperous and society just and peaceful.

                    We just need an opportunity to show reality off.

                    1. How is it now with the different states as examples for each other?

          2. They have things sized up pretty well, they’re just sounding boards for the pop’n in gen’l. People want to believe there’s more present & future wealth out there than actually exists, so they won’t stop trying to milk it until it practically runs dry.

        2. Actually, it seems like in this case it’s just a splinter group taking the social issue bait, and the actual GOP candidates are ignoring it. Which is refreshing for the stupid party.

          1. Except if they lose. If its a close election, even a small number of votes matter.

  7. I’m against gay marriage recognition, too. Of course, I’m also against straight marriage recognition. But then I actually support restricted government. And this is why I can’t vote for Republicans. Or Democrats.

    1. I wrote letters to try to get lawmakers to pass the Defense of Singles act. I got nothing in return. Nothing.

  8. I like the prospect of the the religious right abandoning the GOP. Let the Democrats have them and the neocons.

    1. That’s where they came from!

      George W. Bush was a Southern Democrat in the tradition of Lyndon Johnson–in every way! …from Bush’s expansion of the Great Society to his elective wars to expand democracy.

      They call them “neocons” because they used to be liberals!

      The South turned Republican, and it really came to fruition as part of the Reagan Coalition, but they still hold to Southern Democrat values. The Democrats emphasized themselves as Democrats because they thought we should be able to vote on other people’s rights–going back to Stephen Douglas–and the South remains true to that for the most part.

      If Reagan hadn’t invited the South into the Republican Party, Bush Jr. might have been a Southern Democrat today–and they should go back to the Democrats. The Democrats still think everybody’s rights (from gun rights to property rights) should be put up to a vote.

    2. Sure and who exactly is going to come over from the Dem side to make up for those votes? It is not like the Democrats are going to change on social issues. So the So cons will eventually just stop voting. I know that sounds great and all. I mean hell, maybe they will die too. You can always hope. But if the Dems and the GOP are mirror images on social issues, why would anyone who is currently a Dem stop voting Dem?

      1. “Sure and who exactly is going to come over from the Dem side to make up for those votes?{“

        I’m not convinced Millennials are on the Dem’s side. I think they’re still up for grabs–especially after Obama’s performance–and that if the Republicans stop actively trying to shoo them away, with stuff like gay rights bashing, then fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party probably have a decent shot at winning them over.

      2. They don’t have to be mirror images on social issues.

        The Democrats are becoming a puritanical party in many ways in which the GOP could differentiate themselves.

        I mean, right now, we’ve got a Democratic party that wants to lynch a bunch of black men for whistling at a white women.

        Let them hoist themselves by their own retard.

        1. The SOCONs are a lot of votes. And they tend to have children. Since children tend to follow the political beliefs of their parents, SOCONS are going to be a lot of votes for the forseable future. There is just no way around that. And worse still, they are a lot of votes in a pretty evenly divided country.

          It is a nice fantasy to think you can just tell them to fuck off and hope they go away or stop voting or defect to the other side such that it won’t matter. But I don’t see it happening. Worse, Socons tend to agree with Libertarians on a lot of economic issues. So they are going to have to be dealt with at some point like it or not.

          1. It is a nice fantasy to think you can just tell them to fuck off and hope they go away or stop voting or defect to the other side such that it won’t matter.

            Did you read the fucking article? They are defecting and it’s not because they got tired of libertarians telling them to fuck off. Hell, I’d be amazed if even 10% of NOM’s leadership, never mind its membership, have any idea what a libertarian is. What they’re doing is petulant and childish, and while it is absolutely their right to be that way, it is hypocritical in the extreme for you to dance around what’s actually going on here while you lambaste libertarians for throwing elections to Democrats. At least we vote for our own fucking party; here you have erstwhile bedfellows saying they’re actually going to vote for the Democrats!

            1. Okay, so it is hypocritical of me to call out Libertarians here. But it is not hypocritical at all of Reason to lambast these people and call them childish for doing exactly what Libertarians do all of the time.

              I have never said my position on these people’s actions because that isn’t my point. I am pointing out Reason’s hypocrisy.

              And why is what these people doing any more or less petulant and childish than what reason advises Libertarians do every single day? Does the GOP own their votes but somehow not own Libertarians?

              You just think they are being childish because you don’t like them and really don’t like the fact that they are actually trying to have a say in things. If this were a libertarian group telling people to vote for the Dem, you would think it was great.

              You have a right to think these people’s position is wrong. You do not however have a right to say their tactics are wrong or that they are childish for doing it but Libertarians somehow aren’t for doing the same thing. You can say that but it makes you a hypocrite.

              1. If this were a libertarian group telling people to vote for the Dem, you would think it was great.

                Oh, for fuck’s sake John, the last time there was an article saying that libertarians should vote for Dems not only did I call it out as bullshit but I joked about how it was Reason‘s plot to raise your blood pressure.

                I don’t expect you to remember me, I’m just a bit-player here, but at least try to avoid hinging your arguments on ludicrous generalizations.

                1. I would like to make a formal statement:

                  1. Vote for the most libertarian candidate. This means someone committed to limited government, not just some single freedom. Or “freedom.”

                  2. If the GOP is running a libertarian candidate, then, by all means, vote for him, even if there’s an LP candidate, provided that the GOP guy is libertarian enough to make it a close call. Better to have one in office than selling comic books somewhere.

                  3. Never vote for the Democratic candidate. For the time being and the foreseeable future, they are total statists and not libertarians.

                  1. Okay Pro. But if the GOP candidate is really bad and there isn’t an L candidate on the ballot, why is voting for the Dem in order to punish the GOP for putting up a bad candidate such a terrible thing?

                    These people don’t have a third party to vote for. So what are they supposed to so? Stay home I suppose. But that won’t send as strong a message as voting for the other guy will.

                    1. I just write in my own name when there is no one I want to vote for.

                    2. I’m not voting for total statist party.

                  2. Not good strategy, Pro.

                    If there’s a legislative candidate who’s for extermination camps for Jews and would also be the swing vote against socialized medicine, vote for that candidate because there’s not the slightest chance you’ll get extermination camps, but a good chance you’ll get the vote the right way on the issue that’s actually in balance.

                    As to #3, there aren’t as many good Democrats running for or in office as there used to be, but I bet for local offices there’s still a fair number of them.

                2. Why wouldn’t you think it was great? If you really care about an issue and the GOP sends up some crap weasel who doesn’t care about that issue, why would you object to voting for a Dem in order to punish the GOP doing that, if there wasn’t a Libertarian on the ballot?

                  There is no way you would object to that and if you would I can’t see why. The people on this thread are bothered by this because it puts lie to the dream that Libertarians will some day be the new second party or be able to take over the GOP. This shows why that can’t happen. It can’t happen because even if they did manage to whack the GOP or take it over, the SOCONs would just opt out and do to them what they just did to the SOCONS.

                  1. To be fair John, I think most people here would say to just leave the spot blank if the GOP sends up a crap weasel and there’s no good liberty candidate on the ballot.

                    1. Or write in Warty Hugeman.

                    2. Designate,

                      That is a perfectly reasonable answer. But I don’t see why “fuck you I am voting for your opponent” isn’t one too. As Old Mexican points out below, it is not like one Dem House member is going to make any difference. But the precedent that if you are a Republican and go against this issue there might be consequences will.

                  2. The Democrats would have to dig up Grover Cleveland and the Republicans would have to run the bastard child of Rockefeller and Nixon for there be a conceivable scenario in which the Democrat was measurably better than the Republican.

                    Throwing my vote from Republican to Democrat because they’re indistinguishable makes no sense; I might as well cast a vote for Mickey Mouse.

                  3. John, I think what some libertarians are counting on is that the trads in the GOP will say, “Oh, is that what we’re for now? OK.” And to some extent that does go on, but you shouldn’t count on it too much, because there are actual ideologues out there who aren’t libertarian.

              2. John, it really isn’t exactly what libertarians do. Far from it. NOM is encouraging people to vote for a party, which could well win the election, which opposes its mission entirely. Libertarians often vote for candidates who won’t win because they actually agree with them. How is that the same thing at all? You are saying that voting for people because you actually support them is the same thing as voting for people who you definitely don’t agree with for convoluted strategic reasons. It’s just not the same.

                1. Libertarians often vote for candidates who won’t win because they actually agree with them. How is that the same thing at all?

                  They are the same because in both cases the person is refusing to vote for a party as a way to send a message to that party to better represent your interests. Whether you do that by voting for a sure to lose third party, not voting, or voting for the other guy is a difference of degree not principle. The entire point of all three actions is to deprive the other candidate of your support in hopes that he loses the election and the party learns that it must better represent your views if it wants your vote and to win.

                  1. So, you can’t just vote for someone you like because you think they are good?

                2. The reason they’re doing it is problematic, by way of comparison, to what libertarians do, too.

                  The reason libertarians siphon off votes from Republicans in order to drive Republicans into legislating with libertarians in mind is because we libertarians want more freedom for ourselves and everyone else.

                  The reason these people are trying to throw elections is in the hope of depriving gay people of their rights and freedom.

                  It isn’t the tactics themselves that are the biggest problem. It’s the goal of those tactics and the consequences–for fiscal conservatives. The goal is to deprive gay people of equal treatment–and the consequences for fiscal conservatives is to make a wedge issue that further alienates people who might support fiscal conservatives by way of the Republican Party otherwise.

                  1. Yes Ken,

                    I get it. You don’t like them. So what? They probably don’t like you. Ultimately all you are saying is you disagree with them. Well, you disagree with a lot things. That doesn’t make these people some kind of special bogieman.

                    1. No, John. I’m not saying I don’t like them.

                      I’m saying they’re costing me money–and worse.

                      I’m saying that, ultimately, the reason we had to suffer an absurdly elongated recession and the reason we have things like ObamaCare? is because idiot/asshole culture warriors in the Republican Party can’t shut up about something that doesn’t matter for shit.

                      The reason California’s government is so completely fucked up? Is in no small part because culture warrior Republicans, elsewhere in the country, can’t keep their mouths shut about stupid shit like gay marriage and legitimate rape. And the culturally conservative Republicans don’t figure it out, pretty soon the rest of the country is going to be just like California–and for all the same reasons, too.

                      Maybe it is because I don’t like them!

                      But the reason I don’t like the cultural conservatives is because what they’re doing is destroying this country.

                    2. Actually the reason we are suffering under Bush III – Time Keeps on Ticking is because idiot/asshole independents and libertarians wanted to teach the GOP a lesson after Bush II.

                    3. I’m afraid the cultural conservatives are not at fault, but are just taking the path of least resistance because “free shit” is unbeatable.

                  2. Here’s the way cultural conservatives in the Republican Party treat swing voters who want to vote for fiscal conservatives:

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMjqlVcLCmg

                    Yeah, (theoretically) you get to vote for lower spending, but you gotta take a shot from a culture warrior in the jaw on the way in?

                    Is that absolutely necessary?

                    1. Yeah, Ken it is called politics. Guess what, they are saying the exact same thing about Libertarians. They can’t believe they have to take shit from a bunch of Libertarians in order to get anything done.

                      Life just sucks like that.

                    2. “They can’t believe they have to take shit from a bunch of Libertarians in order to get anything done.”

                      What are they trying to get done, John?

                      They certainly aren’t trying to cut spending or taxes!

                      Cultural conservatives aren’t putting up with libertarians to try to get something else done–they’re fighting libertarians to ban gay marriage as an end in itself.

                    3. Yes Ken,

                      You hate the SOCONS. I get it. Why you think that makes you special or anyone should care remains a mystery. You don’t like the SOCONs good for you. Go be a Democrat. They hate the SOCONs.

                    4. Democrats love SoCons.

                      If it wasn’t for SoCons, places like California might be fiscally conservative.

                      If I hate SoCons, John?

                      …it’s because if it wasn’t for SoCons, places like California might be fiscally conservative.

                    5. And, you know, the rest of the county is becoming more like California all the time.

  9. Okay, John went off his meds. He has been Mary level batshit crazy for two weeks now. Off his fucking rocker insane.

    John, please, I beg you…refill your prescription. You really are making a complete ass of yourself.

    1. Fuck off. Seriously, if your conclusion is that anyone who won’t buy your orthodoxy is just off their meds, then you are not a serious person.

      And why is it so hard to admit that maybe possibly the other side of an issue might have a point? Let me ask you, can you name three times where you have found the position that is counter to the Libertarian orthodoxy actually had a reasonable point that you couldn’t easily refute? I would be curious to hear you give such examples.

      And if you can’t give such examples, might I ask why that is?

      I joke about “thanks for admitting you lost the argument” but like all jokes it contains some truth. If there is a good point to be made, people on here rightfully never hesitate in giving it. I am a bit doubtful that they forgo making such points sometimes because they just like saying things like RED TONY and Mary, especially when it happens after they have argued themselves into a corner.

      1. Let me ask you, can you name three times where you have found the position that is counter to the Libertarian orthodoxy actually had a reasonable point that you couldn’t easily refute?

        no

        But I have principles. And my principles are sound. And it doesn’t surprize me in the least that a republican doesn’t understand that.

        1. Then you are not thinking. It is really that simple. Bowing to reality and understanding that sometimes the other side makes a reasonable point is not compromising your principles. It is just being reasonable and letting logic dictate your views rather than some fanatical commitment to an ideology.

          That old canard about consistency being the hobgoblin of little minds, while misunderstood and misused is to some degree true. It is talking about people like you apparently are who will defend any position no matter what the counter arguments in the name of remaining true and consistent to some arbitrary set of principles.

          1. EXCEPT, you have made no legitimate counter arguments. Your “logic” has been lacking of every single point you’ve made. You are making arguments based upon emotion and nothing more.

            Your emotional response and gut feelings are NOT logic.

            For instance, last night, you espoused going beyond what the CDC recommends concerning Ebola, because the CDC might be wrong about when people are infectious. Yet you can present no evidence that they are wrong or that they are lying. You are basing your position on irrational fear, not evidence.

            You support military action against ISIS based upon what they might do. That’s nothing short of speculation. It’s absurd. It’s completely irrational and immoral. Potential future actions is not a justification for participation in the most immoral egregious act humans do…WAR. If you are attacked, that’s a completely different matter. That’s self defense. Your position on the matter is based upon emotion and speculation, not, as you claim, logic.

            1. You can think that Fransisco. I can’t climb inside your head and make you change.

              But you might consider the possibility that it is not true. Do you honestly read this entire thread and can’t find a single rational argument of mine? You really think that it is all just how “I feel”?

              That is self evidently ridiculous. And the only way I can explain why you would say such a thing rather than “you are wrong and here is why” is because you are incapable of admitting when an opponent has a valid point and when confronted with one who does, you automatically retreat to dismissing them and pretending they are just being irrational.

              That is a sorry way to be. And frankly beneath someone of your intelligence. You owe yourself better than that.

    2. I’ve seen many people (you, John, me, hell even RC) get a lot touchier as we get closer to an election. Everyone wants to see their horse win the race, and any opposition appears to be a hindrance. To accuse John of being uniquely touchy though is not fair.

      1. You are wrong about that. I will enjoy watching the Democrats whine about losing and enjoy watching the Senate make Obama miserable, but it is not like anything big is going to change if that doesn’t happen.

        Why can’t you just accept that I have an honest difference with you? Must everyone who disagrees with you have to have a dishonest reason for doing so?

        I think you are wrong but I don’t think you are dishonest. Why can’t you give me the same respect?

        1. I don’t think I said anything like what you seem to have read from my comment.

          1. Okay. You own your comment and if that is not what you mean, then fair enough. But how am I to interpret

            I’ve seen many people (you, John, me, hell even RC) get a lot touchier as we get closer to an election.

            As anything but that I am just disagreeing with people out of partisan loyalty?

            1. As anything but that I am just disagreeing with people out of partisan loyalty?

              I suppose that’s a fair reading of what I said, but I was referring more to the degree to which people have been willing to fight rather than the positions they’re taking.

              I don’t expect, for example, RC Dean to post mealy mouthed apologia for Islam. But I also didn’t expect him to start bringing up media fecklessness over Islam in unrelated threads, either.

              In your case, I don’t expect you to take issue with NOM’s political goals, but I also didn’t expect you to try to defend them for throwing their votes to Democrats, either.

              1. If I were just a mindless partisan, I would be jumping in with Shackelford and saying how stupid they are being. The fact that I don’t is at least some evidence I don’t take positions on what is great for the GOP.

                I don’t defend their tactics really. I just think Shackelford is hypocritical and silly for criticizing them and am happy to call him out for it.

                In one sense I see how this move is counter productive since the Democrats clearly hate these people. On the other, they really have nothing to lose. If the Republicans turn away from them, they will have zero political influence. So what else are they going to do? And it is not like the other side in this issue is ever going to compromise. We are never going to have civil unions and are very unlikely to have any sort of accommodation on this issue. It is basically going to be gay marriage and forced public accommodation and eventually civil liability for hostile environment for any speech in the work place objecting to gays. That is the Left’s goal and the Republicans are really the only thing standing in the way of that. And even that would seem to be changing.

                1. Ultimately, if the left has the support of the larger culture, there’s not much that can be done to stop them. The nationalization of every fucking issue makes it so that eventually the entire country will be congruous.

                  Nobody seems to be fighting that, certainly not NOM, and while they have a right to take the positions they want, as it stands they are whistling in the wind and looking like spiteful idiots in the process.

    3. In fairness, there is “real John” and “strawman John.” Sometimes the discussion gets tuned toward the strawman rather than trying to make points, where warranted, against the real man.

  10. a political organization has been spending thousands to help out the Democrats in San Diego and Massachusetts to try to stop a couple of gay Republicans from getting voted into office. That group is the well-known anti-gay National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

    An interesting case of Baptists and Bootleggers. Weird but interesting.

    But as a Democrat in a House controlled by Republicans, Moulton wouldn’t be able to impact anything.

    I don’t understand why it would matter either way. A couple of gay Republicans would not do much like it happens today with libertarian-leaning Republicans; like a couple of castaways in a sea of Statists.

    I do have ONE question – why is it that in your mind, a group that advocates for traditional marriage (man with woman, or the other way around), is ipso facto anti-gay? What would you make of those groups that are against polygamy? Would you label them anti-Mormon?

    Do you at least know what the suffix “anti-” means or entails?

    1. I do have ONE question – why is it that in your mind, a group that advocates for traditional marriage (man with woman, or the other way around), is ipso facto anti-gay?

      NOM’s primary focus is gay marriage, but Brown (pictured weeping above) has participated in Putin sponsored anti-gay events, and they’re basically fine with gays, provided they’re absolutely invisible. No representation in pop culture, keep their private lives to themselves, etc.

      Maggie Gallagher (a divorcee), the founder of NOM, has some perplexing views on how gays lead to single motherhood and the breakdown of her own family (her husband did NOT leave her for a dude).

    2. Mexican,

      It would matter because it would send a message to other Republicans that going against this issue has consequences. The issue is the precedent it sets not what these particular guys will do, which as you point out is not much.

      1. Actually, Old Mexican, John is much more on point here.

        NOM is willing to support Democrats who hold identical views on gay marriage rather than see gays become normalized within the Republican party. I’m not sure why the presumption here should be that they are not anti-gay.

        1. They might be. But that doesn’t make their tactics objectionable. Again, if the problem is with the NOM, then Scott should say it and stop whining about their tactics.

          1. Their tactics aren’t “objectionable” they just betray a high level of spite and desperation. They’re free and welcome to direct their resources (largely donated by Republicans who may find their dollars going to Dems objectionable).

            I find the organization objectionable, so I am delighted that they are desperate and showing themselves to be spiteful shits.

            I, of course, do not speak for Shackford.

            1. Sure it shows a high degree of spite. But so what? One man’s spite is another man’s dedication to principle. Since when is spite such a bad thing? I guarantee you it doesn’t seem that way when you are doing it. It doesn’t to me anyway.

              1. Since when is spite such a bad thing?

                I’m no classicist, but I’m fairly certain spite has been considered a negative motivation since forever. It’s almost always associated with poor decision making and outcomes that harm the spiteful actor more than the person being spited.

                I’m not even sure what you’re arguing anymore. Nobody is claiming they shouldn’t do what they’re doing, just that it looks ridiculous that they’re doing it.

                1. If they look rediculous, so do Libertarians.

                  And like I explain above, what other choice do they have. We are pretty close to making any speech objecting to gays the subject of civil liability. There will be a couple of small exceptions. If people want to inside designated and regulated churches say such things or say so quietly in their homes that will be okay. But everything else will be subject to potential civil liability under the public accommodation laws. That is how it works with racist speech. And it is how it will work regarding objecting to gays.

                  I don’t see how you stop that. But even if you can, the only ones who will will be the GOP. It certainly won’t be the Democrats.

                  1. I don’t see how you stop that. But even if you can, the only ones who will will be the GOP. It certainly won’t be the Democrats.

                    It really feels like you do not understand what is going on here.

                    This is an anti-gay marriage organization that has thrown its support behind pro-gay Democrats.

                    They could have just said that there are no good candidates in those races. Instead, they took a bizarre and as you admit spiteful position. No one can really explain how this advances their goals, how it reflects some sort of principle, or why you seem so intent on defending it.

                    You say Republicans are the answer, and yet here you are defending a group throwing its weight behind Democrats.

                    1. Yes they could have said that. But voting for their opponent harms the GOP guy more than not voting. And so what if the Dem wins? The GOP is no different on the issue. So they are going to lose in this election either way.

                      The only positive thing from their perspective that can come from this election is if the GOP guy loses and it stands as a warning to other GOP candidates in the future. So voting for the Dem makes perfect sense here.

                      I don’t understand why you guys have such a hard time grasping the strategic thinking here. It is not hard. Is it that you just can’t accept that an organization you don’t like must be stupid and therefore cannot engage in such thinking? I can’t see any other reason why you have such a hard time understanding the strategy here and why it makes sense.

                      You wouldn’t have a problem seeing it if gun owners were doing it.

                    2. I don’t understand why you guys have such a hard time grasping the strategic thinking here. It is not hard. Is it that you just can’t accept that an organization you don’t like must be stupid and therefore cannot engage in such thinking? I can’t see any other reason why you have such a hard time understanding the strategy here and why it makes sense.

                      Has it occurred to you that this organization isn’t strategically brilliant and that they are behaving in a way that is counter-productive to their goals? You seem eager to defend them, but you don’t seem to know much about their history or positions. They’re largely a troll group founded by a divorcee who gripes about gays destroying traditional marriage that has managed to suck in a segment of people who shit the bed whenever gay marriage comes up. It’s entirely possible that this is just a tantrum.

                    3. Even if it is Jessee, you can do the smart thing out of spite or as a tantrum.

                      And again, why is it a tantrum? Why are they obligated to support candidates who disagree with their issue such that whenever they don’t or seek to punish the GOP for selling them out they are throwing a tantrum?

                      If a pro gay group did this to an anti-marriage Democrat, you wouldn’t be saying that about them. You would be saying “fuck the Democrats if they are not going to support our issues”. And you would be right.

                    4. It’s a tantrum because they don’t have the numbers to change the political landscape. If they were pulling a heavy voting bloc away from the Republicans it would be strategic. NOM has shown itself to be delusional enough that even if DeMaio loses (which he might, but for very different reasons) they would claim they’d been instrumental in it, but SD isn’t fertile ground for NOM’s politics.

                    5. I don’t understand why you guys have such a hard time grasping the strategic thinking here.

                      Eh, I can grasp it. I explained it elsewhere. They may have laser-like strategic focus, but they’re playing a game of chance, here. If they roll the dice and it comes up snake eyes, then what?

                    6. They are no worse off than they would have been anyway. That is what. These people are universally hated by the political class. The Democrats overtly hate them and the Republicans quietly loath them and just wish they would shut up. So they have nothing to lose.

                    7. They are no worse off than they would have been anyway.

                      Being a politically marginalized group sucks and is largely beyond your control. Making yourselves look like short-sighted spiteful idiots when you are at the mercy of the public, however, is entirely of your own making.

                    8. Being a politically marginalized group sucks and is largely beyond your control. Making yourselves look like short-sighted spiteful idiots when you are at the mercy of the public, however, is entirely of your own making.

                      The Libertarians never seem to be too bothered when the Republicans view them that way whenever they don’t suck it up and vote for the GOP. Why should these people feel any different?

                      You guys love being spiteful when you are doing it. And now you are just shocked that someone else might do the same thing.

                    9. You guys love being spiteful when you are doing it. And now you are just shocked that someone else might do the same thing.

                      Again, where have I ever endorsed a Democrat solely because the Republican was insufficiently libertarian?

                      If NOM founded the One Man, One Woman Party or whatever and was throwing their support behind it in these elections, then you could call me hypocritical for giving them shit about it (which I wouldn’t do).

                      As it stands, they are putting party politics over their principles. I do criticize that sort of activity when it comes to libertarians, and I agree with what Pro Lib said.

                      If the Republican is more libertarian than the Democrat and stands a fair chance at winning, then he has my vote (or if by some freak accident the Democrat is more libertarian than the Republican, then the same applies in reverse). But if the two candidates are basically indistinguishable from my perspective or the Republican is not much more likely to win than the Libertarian, then my vote goes to principle first and foremost.

                  2. You assume they’re acting on a principle other than perpetuating this culture war issue. Breaking the gay/Democrat political alliance would be huge, but instead NOM wants to make sure that the Republicans remain engaged in a losing battle that supports their view that gays should be neither seen nor heard. They’re so interested in this they’re willing to throw money at opponents of gay Republicans.

                    Trying to keep the relationship between gays and Democrats intact all but ensures that public accommodation will remain a key point of Democratic party politics, and a point where the Republicans will consistently lose with all but the most fervent culture warriors.

                    what other choice do they have.

                    The sane thing would be to not endorse or fund anyone in those key races.

                    1. I see your point Jessee. And you may be right. On the other hand it might also be the case that the Gay Democratic alliance will never change or won’t for a very long time. So trying to get Democrats to have mercy here and hope they don’t just outlaw these people might not be the best strategy. It is possible that could happen. But it seems to be a bit of a long shot.

                2. Even John has no idea what his point is. John has become but a walking shadow, a poor player
                  That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
                  And then is heard no more: it is a tale
                  Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
                  Signifying nothing.

                  1. Cytoxic,

                    Are you even capable of making rational arguments anymore? You have become the L version of shreek. All you ever seem to do is scream buzz words and invective.

    3. Because NOM *is* anti-gay.

      Is reality somehow not a part of the equation?

  11. My neighbor’s mother-in-law makes $88 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of work for 8 months but last month her check was $21643 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
    Have a peek at this website. ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  12. I’m confused. I’m not sure where John is necessarily wrong in all of this in that NOM is putting principles before principals. Aren’t they?

    I mean, if making sure gay marriage doesn’t spread is your defining thing (as their name would suggest), it stands to reason that they don’t care as much about fiscal sanity as they do about that issue and if voting for two openly gay candidates would possibly increase the likelihood of gay marriage being more widely accepted, the logical thing to do is try to get people to not vote for them.

    Isn’t it a little silly for us to lambast them for sticking to their principles when we would expect the NRA or NORML to do the same when it came to guns or pot?

    1. That is exactly my point. But somehow the fact that I made it means I am the new Mary Stack. It is almost as if it is true but makes some people really uncomfortable or something.

    2. I dunno. My only problem is John’s contention that it is exactly what libertarians do when voting for libertarians. It may just be that not everyone votes based on what effect their vote will have on the successes of one of the major parties.

      1. Libertarians don’t refuse to vote for candidates because those candidates are wrong on some issue important to Libertarians?

        The only difference is Libertarians have their own party to vote for and these guys don’t.

        1. Well, I’m bored with this now and I should do work.

    3. If the Democrats they were supporting were opposed to gay marriage, then yes this would be a principled stand.

      NOM has like other similar organizations tried to frame itself as anti-gay marriage rather than anti-gay. Of course, gay people and fellow travelers have said that’s insincere, but ultimately it’s up to the voting public to decide how they feel about it.

      This is nothing but spite, and spite is not principled. They are upset that the Republicans in these races aren’t in alignment with them on the issues. The best they can hope to accomplish by throwing their votes to the Dems is to get the Republicans to reverse course and try to win them back.

      But if in the interim gay marriage becomes more entrenched, then what? They’re just going to frame themselves as persecuted? They chose to endorse a candidate who is actively opposed to them and their agenda. The tactical move may pay off, but if not, they’ve sacrificed their goals to play party politics.

      1. NOM has like other similar organizations tried to frame itself as anti-gay marriage rather than anti-gay.

        How can they be anti gay marriage if they will support any Republican no matter what his position on marriage? That would make them a Republican organization would it not?

        These guys are pro gay marriage are they not? If they don’t want NOM supporting the other guy, they should come out against gay marriage. If they don’t want to do that, then NOM has every right to vote against them as a warning to other Republicans not to be pro gay marriage.

        The fact that these guys are gay is just a red herring. They could be straight and NOM would and should be doing the same thing.

        1. Ultimately, whether they are brilliant strategists or just spiteful bigots will depend on how this all plays out.

          Knowing the history of this particular organization, they will just whine bloody murder when they become further marginalized by the Republicans and the public at large.

          1. While they are hated by the courts and politicians and all right thinking people. They actually do pretty well at the ballot box. The only reason the courts stepped in and jammed gay marriage down the country’s throats is because it kept losing at the ballot box.

            So, they are certainly marginalized by the political class and the elites. But they are not without popular support.

            1. As I said, ultimately how this appears will depend on how it plays out.

        2. John, the Dems they are supporting are pro-gay marriage as well. They are choosing to support Dems for the first time because the Republicans are gay. This is a case of all things ACTUALLY being equal. They’d rather support a pro-gay Democrat than a gay Republican.

          I can’t fathom how that’s a red herring.

          1. Yes Jesse the Democrats are. That fact just means the DOM people are going to lose in this election no matter what. so they are making the rational choice to make the best of it by hoping the Dem wins and they at least show the GOP they can’t get away with walking away from the issue.

            1. Have you been to San Diego? They aren’t really known for their heavy SoCon politics the way say 1980s Orange County was, nor is Massachusetts. If DeMaio loses nobody is going to wonder if they could’ve done better by running someone that NOM would’ve been happy with.

              1. Okay. That just means these people don’t have a lot of influence. It doesn’t make their choice irrational. Moreover, I don’t see why it is a bad idea to take the opportunity of kicking your opponent when he is down or trying to take credit for when they lose.

                1. Are you entirely unfamiliar with the phrase “cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face”? Because that principle is in play here. You can argue all you want that this is a good idea, but it’s just signaling that you’re unwilling to give up your initial assessment of what’s going on even if that’s not the most reasonable interpretation of the scenario.

                  And while I’d love to continue this, I need to run around and take pictures of my coworkers in costume for a bit so we have something for the Christmas party slide show. I’ll be back for the PM Links.

      2. In my defense, I didn’t read the article and didn’t bother to find out if the dems they were throwing their support behind were pro-gay marriage, which does change the calculus on whether or not they are sticking to principles.

        Personally, I would think telling your base to stay home if you’re not getting the pony you want would be the most principled path.

  13. I don’t know very much about NOM, but I know a lot of “SoCons” (mainly family and friends of family) and they’re much much more likely to stop voting than to switch over to the Dems just because a Republican happens to be gay. We’re forgetting about abortion. That is a much bigger deal to most conservatives than the fact that gays exist.

  14. I like how this nicely puts a nice clean hole in the ‘libertarian-SoCon’ alliance. It was always a stupid idea, and now it’s an obviously stupid idea.

  15. ITT John’s posts indicate a cognitive disorder.

    1. That is right. Everyone who disagrees with you is just the crazy. Whatever gets you through the night sweetheart.

  16. Mr. Shackford, are you sure NOM is anti-gay? Couldn’t they just officially be like me? I’m not anti-gay or anti-lesbian, but I’m against gov’t (whether by plebiscite, legislation, or administrative or judicial edict) attempting to usurp the non-governmentally established meaning of “spouse”, “married”, etc.

    Are you H&R guys just trying to paint one position as “the” libertarian position by saying anyone on the other side is so for the wrong reasons?

    What to make of me, huh? I’m the Republican & Conservative nominee for NY assembly (80th, Robert Goodman vs. Democrat incumbent Mark Gjonaj), and my positions on “family values” are based on my own analysis, not choosing up sides. I’m an extremist on the legal abortion side, even wanting legal infanticide. I’m against same-sex “marriage”, but not against legal polygamy. Go ahead, try to pigeon-hole me!

    1. You WILL be pigeon holed!!!1!!

    2. Do you or don’t you believe in equal protection of the law?

      Do you or don’t you believe that the existence other people’s rights should depend on the outcome of a popularity contest?

      1. Yes to #1, no to #2. Next Q, please.

        1. Next Question:

          If you believe in equal protection of the law, how do you rationalize using the law to treat gay people differently?

          If you don’t believe that our rights exist (or not) depending on the results of a popularity contest, then how do you rationalize running for office promising to oppose the very existence of someone else’s rights?

          “but I’m against gov’t (whether by plebiscite, legislation, or administrative or judicial edict) attempting to usurp the non-governmentally established meaning of “spouse”, “married”, etc.”

          Opposing gay marriage because the government shouldn’t be in the marriage business is like supporting segregation in public schools because the government shouldn’t be in the education business.

          If the government is going to use the law to do something I’d rather it didn’t, I’d still like it to not to discriminate against people arbitrarily. Isn’t that what equal protection of the laws is all about?

    3. Mr. Shackford, are you sure NOM is anti-gay

      Yes. Covered up above.

      non-governmentally established meaning of “spouse”, “married”, etc.

      Government did that a few hundred years ago by attaching legal rights and responsibilities to those terms. People didn’t seem to care until gays got involved.

      What to make of me, huh?

      Are you trying to compare yourself to NOM, because you don’t seem to be a like case to NOM. Actually your last two paragraphs seem to be trying to pick a fight that isn’t there at all, but I guess that’s what comments sections are for.

      I’m against same-sex “marriage”, but not against legal polygamy.

      LOVE the scarequotes. Remember people’s marriages aren’t real as long as you use scarequotes to describe them. I suppose at least you’re Biblically consistent on the pro-polygamy/anti-gay marriage stance. I can appreciate hide-bound consistency in idiots.

      1. But there’s nothing Biblic in my thinking, except coincidentally.

        Marriage as usually understood predates al, l gov’ts & religions, and probably H. sapiens. The legal rights & responsibilities appertaining until recently were established by common law, i.e. custom?a slow process of nobody’s design, a spontaneous order. It may happen that eventually that process will result in further changes in the direction that you seek, in which case dictionaries broadly will reflect the new meanings of the words.

        Nobody has ever counter-argued the parallel I’ve brought up as to how money terms such as dollar/thaler were established by custom and then eventually usurped by the sovereign to favor certain interests at the expense of everybody else.

      2. The scare quotes accomplish exactly what I intend, which is to say that someone is trying to use a word with an established meaning to mean something else. Same thing happened with “dollar”, “pound”, etc.

        1. No it indicates that you don’t like a new definition that has emerged with changing cultural contexts. You see, I can call you a bastard now without knowing whether or not you had a father, or a moron even if your IQ is negligibly above 70 and I don’t have to use scarequotes because over time the meanings of those once very narrow technical terms have widened to embrace you.

          If you want a central body to define words in perpetuity, move to France.

    4. Go ahead, try to pigeon-hole me!

      “Embarrassing”?

      1. That one I’ll wear. I do seem to embarrass other people easily, but not myself.

  17. I wonder how many of these cockroaches will go on to proudly proclaim that they are for small gov’t. Funny thing about hypocrites, they can’t see their hypocrisy.

  18. SODOMY: MEDICALLY DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR?
    Why not have a public dialogue on the medical safety of Sodomy, gay and straight, and ask these two simple medical questions?

    That is, Doesn’t the medical community recommend that you, “Wash your hands after you go to the bathroom.”?

    Yet, now there are some in the medical community that now say it’s OK to “Sleep with the waste that gets flushed down in the toilet?” and that it’s possible to live a perfectly normal life.

    Additional, the same can be said that there are some in the medical community that now say it’s OK to “Lick the toilet bowl” and that it’s also possible to live a perfectly normal life.

  19. “That group is the well-known anti-gay National Organization for Marriage (NOM).”

    Are you serious? No one has a clue who this group is. They could have their national convention in a cereal box.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.