Gay Marriage

Lindsey Graham: GOP Needs to Drop Anti-Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendment from Platform

Says he'd defend religious freedom as president

|

U.S. Senate

S.C. Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of more than a dozen Republicans running for president, told NBC's Meet the Press this morning that he believed the GOP should drop a plank supporting a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman from its national platform.

Via NBC News:

"What I want to do is protect the religious liberties of those who believe that opposing same sex marriage as part of their faith. So no I would not engage in the Constitutional amendment process as a party going into 2016. Accept the Court's ruling. Fight for the religious liberties of every American."

Graham says not changing the platform would hurt Republicans' prospects in 2016. Graham was already staking out this position on the day of the gay marriage ruling, when he said he would respect the Supreme Court' decision as president. Not every Republican candidate has said so—and not every president (including this one) has respected every decision to come out of the Supreme Court

For Graham, the Republican focus should shift to protecting religious liberties—something the ACLU said it would stop doing. "Rather than pursing a divisive effort that would be doomed to fail, I am committing myself to ensuring the protection of religious liberties of all Americans," he said on Friday, according to the Washington Times. "No person of faith should ever be forced by the federal government to take action that goes against his or her conscience or the tenets of their religion."

As president, Graham said he would "staunchly defend religious liberty" and "devote the necessary federal resources to the protection of all Americans from any effort to hinder the free and full exercise of their rights." It was time, Graham said, for the country to "move forward together respectfully and as one people.

NEXT: WATCH: Stonewall 2015: The Night Marriage Equality Became The Law of the Land

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. Shouldn’t there be a rainbow flag behind him in that picture? All the cool kids are doing that these days.

    1. Oh man I totally should’ve run the picture through the Facebook rainbow thing!

      1. Everyone else did, be different!

  2. I’m…ugh…well…er…cuz…wait…um…

    I’ve never agreed with Lindsay Graham before. I don’t know how to act.

    1. I had pretty much the same reaction.

    2. Same here. This happened to me once before with Tony. Same issue. Same reaction.

    3. Indeed. The idea that Lindsay Graham made a better move on this than Scott Walker upsets me.

  3. This is a good strategic move for Lindsey. I mean, nobody will vote for him with McCain as a running mate, but who could say no to McCain as the First Lady?

    1. The ceremony on the White House lawn will be fabulous.

    2. Great we go from just plain cranky bitch to cranky old bitch as first lady.

      Of course maybe the reason McCain is always so bellicose is because he couldn’t marry who he wanted prior to this week!

    3. but who could say no to McCain as the First Lady?

      Okay, I spoke too soon when I said there is NO WAY I’d ever vote for LG.

  4. I just went to the Seattle Times this morning and I was relieved to see that their 24/7 Gay Marriage coverage has been interrupted by something entirely new: Income inequality is rising as our economy “begins to recover”.

    Keep bein’ you, mainstream media.

  5. OT:

    Greek banks to be closed tomorrow as capital controls are put in place.

    1. that will not make things worse i’m sure. capital controls always work out for the best and don’t inflame panic.

      1. Already started yesterday when Tspipras announced a July 5 referendum.

        http://www.france24.com/en/201…..ne-tsipras

    2. That’s nothing. Give ’em about 6 months and they’ll be closed for good!

    3. There are still Greeks with money in banks?

    4. I can’t help but laugh. The Greeks are doing everything they shouldn’t be doing. It can’t be a mistake, they have to be doing this on purpose.

      1. Politics is the mindkiller. They’re leftists. Of course they doing economics wrong.

      2. There is some thinking that this is good for Greeks – let them withdraw all their money in cash Euros, then the country goes bankrupt, and gets a new devalued currency. Greeks bring their money back.

        This lessens the pain for citizens, and doesn’t do much else.

  6. Can a man look any gayer than that? He makes Graham Norton look straight.

    1. Don’t talke shit about Grahm Norton.

    2. When the page first loaded, the picture only showed him from the neck up. I thought it was an ugly old woman with short hair.

  7. i DON’T UNDERSTAND

    HE ONLY EATS ANTI-GAY PIZZA??

  8. I find it incredible that the party with only gay and black US Senators is the one accused of intolerance and bigotry.

    1. they only do it for show, duh

      no one is more race-friendly and tolerant than the people who accuse everyone of racism and swim in a sea of hatred for their fellow Americans

      1. One of those articles includes the best photoshopped image ever
        http://media.salon.com/2015/06…..change.jpg

        The headline is great too “Big Business declares war on science..”

        1. You can’t fool me – that’s not Photoshop. That’s the Detroit skyline, taken this past Friday.

          Gotcha!

        2. I’m severely disheartened after reading that article and the comments. Not that I’m disheartened about gays getting married, I really don’t give a shit. It’s that I noticed a repeating proclamation the comments. The Progs are now calling their opponents statists and proclaiming themselves to be anti-state.

          A group of people who want to regulate and tax the shit out of everything, have the gov’t run literally everything, want to decide what you can say, what you can buy, what you have to eat, what you can do, what your kids can do, etc., are saying they are anti-state.

          Who knew? Guess we all need to pack it up and throw libertarianism in the fucking woodchipper.

          1. The Progs are now calling their opponents statists and proclaiming themselves to be anti-state.

            Well that’s nothing new, it’s just a repackaging of Marx’s drivel about hour the state would wither away in a socialist utopia…

      2. One of those articles includes the best photoshopped image ever
        http://media.salon.com/2015/06…..change.jpg

        The headline is great too “Big Business declares war on science..”

          1. grr

            Na na na na boo boo you can’t catch me! *sticks tongue out*

            /sqrl

        1. Greatest Photoshop Evar

  9. Holy crap, I just realized that Graham looks like David Foley doing an impression of an idiotic schmuck politician. This has to mean something.

      1. I’d forgotten about that, Hugh. It slipped my mind.

        1. That’s probably because you’re a girl drink drunk.

    1. You dishonor NewsRadio with that observation. (I don’t really care what happens to that Canadian KITH baloney.)

  10. GAY MARRIAGE = FASCISM
    Why does Lindsey Graham want teh FASCISTS to win?

  11. As president, Graham said he would “staunchly defend religious liberty” and “devote the necessary federal resources to the protection of all Americans from any effort to hinder the free and full exercise of their rights.” It was time, Graham said, for the country to “move forward together respectfully and as one people.

    Well, he can set to work right this very minute protecting the free and full exercise of the rights of religious freedom of cake bakers, florists, wedding photographers and owners of pizza joints.

    Oh, wait. These people have no rights. Ok then. Onward we go.

    1. I believe that what Lindsey Graham is doing is known as “Failure Theater” I’m OK with Juis Sui Gay Marriage, just pointing out that there’s going to be tons of BS from establishment Republicans about religious liberty and probably fuck-all done for the people about to get hammered by the legal establishment over this issue.

      1. I certainly agree that there will be fuck-all done by any politicians for the people hammered by the Gay Avengers. Talk is cheap, here and elsewhere.

  12. Broken clock….

  13. While we’re at it, let’s find a religious fundamentalist (not a Muslim, Heaven forfend) and wreck his business and levy a hefty fine on him. It being all about love, you see.

  14. Lindsey doesn’t have a name we associate with bubble-headed coeds, he has the same political acumen.

    Yes, the problem with the Republican Party is that it keeps nominating extremists who alienate the public. It needs to nominate moderates like McCain and Romney, they’ll be sure to win.

    And of course, to the social liberals, “allowing fundamentalist business owners to discriminate” isn’t a consensus moderate position, but a part of the hateful agenda of the hating haters.

    1. “doesn’t *just* have a name we associate” etc.

      1. Just saw the news about this issue today myself, would you believe. You holding up OK, mate? Any good Surviving the Scourge of Gay Marriage sermons from the father today?

        1. The funny thing is that to the true gay activists, libertarians like you are now the enemy. You were temporarily useful as allies, but now that you defend the right of businesses to choose their own customers and employees, and to decide whether or not to let ladies in the gents’ room or gents into the ladies’, you are now part of the Vast Right-Wing Hate Conspiracy of Hating Haters.

          Of course, feel free to tell the gay activists, “hooray, we won!”

          They’ll be like, “what do you mean ‘we,’ straight boy?”

  15. Yeah it doesn’t really matter what Graham has in his platform.

    1. Whatever, plankist!

  16. The journey of a 10 year old transgendered child.

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..-the-cops/

    1. I thought the SJW argument is that there is no difference between males and females, that sexual identity is a social construct? Unless of course it is not, then we have to make all kinds of accommodations for trannies?

      1. It’s not a tranny unless you can retrofit it with a Hurst shifter.

      2. I remembered seeing this video a while back.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70

        In searching for it I found this also:

        http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRed…..s_cut_all/

        Apparently a comedian’s video has essentially destroyed the Gender Studies crowd in Scandanavia, of all places. Fascinating. Why aren’t we showing that video in every university in the land?

        1. No time to watch it, but wow, thanks for posting.

          1. Save it and watch later. It is fantastic. Well worth the time it takes to watch.

            Apparently after showing that in Scandanavia the Gender Studies folks lost all of their funding. That shit is taking hold here and needs to be stamped out. This is an excellent tool for that.

            1. If we can win there, we can win anywhere.

        2. It looks interesting, thanks for posting.

      3. I thought the SJW argument is that there is no difference between males and females, that sexual identity is a social construct?

        It was until there was no way to gain power from it.

        1. Girls like girlie things and boys like boy things. So since at 5 he liked the barbies that they bought for him, he’s a girl. If they had a daughter and she liked math, she would be a boy. Sounds like the parents have it all figured out.

          1. I’ve known a few trans people and the one thing I’ve noticed that they always seem to have in common is a preoccupation with the most stereotypical things of the opposite gender…to a much more extreme degree than anyone I’ve met that was born with that sex. Between them and feminists, who think that the very idea of women being physically weaker is a social construct, there seems to be no consistency about what gender identity actually entails.

    2. Dammit, I was going to post this. It seemed like the perfect chum to throw in the water.

      1. That was my thought:)

          1. “This Mash seems to be broken”

            I demand that my mash have unbreakable integrity

    3. Jesus Christ on a cracker. That’s beyond messed up.

    4. The journey of a 10 year old transgendered child.

      I’m not sure how I come down on this?

      Need to think about it.

      1. Watch the video I posted above.

    5. I’m more concerned about the journey of Jazz’s 10 year old fedora.

    6. However there is no way that kid can consent to a tattoo.

    7. It’s difficult to know what to do with this situation. This requires the kind of evidence-based thinking that conservatives absolutely will not have anything do with on this and several other subjects.

      1. Fuck you Canadian Chickenhawk.

        Tell me all the “evidence-based” thinking non-conservatives have done on this subject.

        I’ve seen studies that show 40% of transgenders that complete their “transition” attempt suicide after their surgery- and that’s the “adults”- tell me how giving puberty supressing drugs to a 10 yr old is appropriate…

  17. Metal Exercise: What would happen to the Republican Party if it suddenly dropped the Anti-Gay Marriage and Pro-Life portions of its platform? Are they too branded by those issues for it to matter any more or would they become less objectionable as a result?

    1. They’ll always be someone to cater to the socons.

      1. You know who else catered to the socons?

        1. *Besides* Paula Deen.

        2. Caesar Augustus?

        3. Catering companies, when ordered by a court to do so?

        4. Anita Bryant?

    2. Democrats move further left. Berate Republicans for not joining them. It won’t ever end.

      1. Doesn’t mean it will work.

    3. What would happen to the Democratic Party now that gay marriage is legal? People don’t vote for the Democrats for their economic policies…

      1. There’s always the War on Women.

    4. They’d get more votes?

      I don’t get it. Is this a trick question?

      1. No, they would not. You do realize most of the country is not virulently pro abortion on demand, right?

        1. And most of the country doesn’t want the government involved.

        2. You win votes by making your tent bigger. If Republicans had NO POSITION on abortion they would attract everyone who believes in sound fiscal policy (I should say non-socialist fiscal policy) AND ALSO believes strongly in allowing abortion.

          What are the anti-abortionists gonna do…vote Democrat? Or stay home and let the Democrats fiscal policy run them into the ground?

          1. What’s the overlap on those two positions ?

            You’re Pauline Kael-ing this: MOST PEOPLE, men and women, are for having some restrictions on abortion. Having no position on abortion makes the tent smaller, dude.

            1. Having no position on abortion makes the tent smaller, dude.

              Yeah, because the anti-abortionists will leave.

              1. They can stay home: see Romney, Mitt.

                And on that note, remember when a moderate Massachusetts governor was transformed by media and activists into the second coming of Jerry Falwell? Completely manufactured and still effective.

                1. remember when a moderate Massachusetts governor was transformed by media and activists into the second coming of Jerry Falwell?

                  No I don’t. That’s not why he lost. He lost because he sucked.

    5. It wouldn’t matter because the movement left would just make something up. The Republicans are abortion moderates and it still doesn’t matter because Fake War on Women. 75 cents!

    6. “Metal Exercise…”

      Here’s your trophy back.

      1. You misunderstood him. He meant this.

    7. 1. It’s all a trick to win voters. Just look at this politician or speaker that is still saying these things.

      2. The GOP’s economic policies are even worse for gays and abortion-ready women.

    8. This has somewhat happened in Canada. The Tories tended to hold more ‘traditional’ views on sexuality, but have consistently distanced themselves from those positions over the past couple decades. There’s some very anti-abortion/anti-gay marriage Tories in Parliament, but they’re unable to get anywhere with it because they are always axed by higher-ups in the party. Even Harper, who’s part of one of those weird Prairie churches, seems pretty aware that it’s not a hill worth dying on in modern Canadian politics. The big SoCon party in Canada is Christian Heritage, a minority party that has had a constant decline in voters since the 80s (note that they still beat the Libertarians and both Communist parties every election though).

      SoCons in Canada who vote for the Tories tend to end up like the libertarians who are encouraged to vote Republican in the US, i.e. it’s mostly lip service.

  18. “What I want to do is protect the religious liberties of those who believe that opposing same sex marriage as part of their faith.”

    Then, with all due respect, Senator, I have no idea what you want to do.

  19. What Republicans need to do is to outlaw no fault divorce.

    They lost the gay argument when it stopped being against the law:

    When It Stopped Being Against The Law

    1. Why would they want to outlaw no-fault divorce? Why trap people in a contract they no longer wish to be a part of?

      1. At least with contracts you have to have a breach of some kind. Calling marriage a contract in the land of no fault divorce is delusional.

    2. Who gives a shit about what Republicans should do?

      1. Are the only Real Libertarians the ‘no-compromise’ types who can’t vote because there aren’t any perfect candidates?

        I can understand maintaining emotional contempt for the entirety of the political landscape – however, when it comes down to basic things like Fiscal Policy, i think its reasonable to vote for parties that at least *pretend* to care about reducing the scope of govt, limit spending, reduce regulatory barriers.

        1. IOW – I myself do want ‘better republicans’ to provide a counter to the hopeless Democrats.

          Most of them suck balls. Rand is a rare breath of fresh air, tho imperfect. I want to see more people like him calling out the rest of the GOP for being retards.

        2. So you prefer to support the Team that lies to you about advancing your agenda over the one that just ignores you?

          1. as per my own description =

            if you allow “trying to transform the party that only pretends to support my agenda…. into *actually* supporting my agenda” in your definition of “support”…. then sure, why not?

            We do live in a country where the 2 party system doesn’t leave a lot of viable wiggle room. Is acknowledging that just too much of a compromise to one’s purist self-perception?

            1. If you want to waste your time praying…er, voting, well, I hope you enjoy yourself.

              1. beats whining self-importantly

                1. I don’t think that’s fair, Gilmore. Considering that there is such a thing as the LP, and that the audience for Reason are those who putatively support it, I think it’s fair to ask why supporters of one party would care about the platform planks of another.

                  1. I think it’s fair to ask why supporters of one party would care about the platform planks of another.

                    Stay on your reservation, IOW. I guess all the pieces Reason publishes on the major-party policy platforms are so much hokum?

                    1. I’m sure you realize that my statement was in response to Gilmore’s labeling of Warty’s question as “self-important whining” and not about why Reason would report on Graham’s statement.

                      So, I’m going to inquire as to why you felt it necessary to misrepresent what I actually wrote.

                    2. ” Gilmore’s labeling of Warty’s question as “self-important whining””

                      Confession = I find it odd to complain about people discussing politics at a political magazine.

                    3. So, I’m going to inquire as to why you felt it necessary to misrepresent what I actually wrote.

                      By quoting you? Sorry. The fine distinction you drew after the fact was hardly obvious. And the question still bears asking. If Reason’s readers aren’t to stray from the LP reservation for a dance with the harlots of the major 2 parties, then what possible purpose could be served by Reason spending as much time as it does covering the policy planks of the major 2 parties? (Not mentioning that a majority of the Reason editorial staff themselves has voted for a major party candidate in the last 3 elections, going by their “Who’s Getting Your Vote?” polls)

                    4. Surely you can’t be this dense. False dichotomies are false.

                    5. It’s not my false dichotomy though.

                    6. By quoting you?

                      It wasn’t the quoting but your mendacious paraphrasing after it that’s the problem. Now, if you want to play obtuse because you feel like a fight, go find someone else and knock yourself out. I’m not interested in your eristics.

                    7. It wasn’t the quoting but your mendacious paraphrasing

                      You still haven’t bothered showing your work to explain how I misrepresented what you said (let alone did so intentionally).

                      I’m not interested in your eristics.

                      Name calling is a lot easier than actually defending the stupid shit you wrote, so I can’t blame ya.

                    8. You still haven’t bothered showing your work to explain how I misrepresented what you said (let alone did so intentionally).

                      Oh, but I have, my dear. And your response was to have a rhetorical hissy fit. Again, tell me just where did I state people have to stay on their ideological “reservations”, hm? Or are you just not clear on what the whole “belonging to a political party” thing is about? I’m sorry that I questioned your beloved creed of Fusionism, where one side continually gives and the other side continually takes.

                      Name calling is a lot easier than actually defending the stupid shit you wrote, so I can’t blame ya.

                      What does Epi call this? Projection, yes, that’s it.

                      See, you could have ended this by merely writing something along the lines of “I’m not sure I understand you, but did you mean…..” But because you felt like constructing a strawman to fight, or perhaps because of your ego, you decided to make an ass out of yourself.

                    9. Oh, but I have, my dear.

                      Your response was to say that I misrepresented what you said without explaining how, except to say that your point about it being gauche to care about the major party political platforms as a libertarian was exclusive to the context of Gilmore considering voting for a Republican, not to Reason mag covering Republican and Democratic policy (or the proprietors of Reason mag voting for Republicans and Democrats). Sorry, but your original post was not quite that detailed or nuanced. You proceeded from there to calling me a liar.

                    10. Again, tell me just where did I state people have to stay on their ideological “reservations”, hm? Or are you just not clear on what the whole “belonging to a political party” thing is about?

                      Take note that the word “ideological” did not precede the word “reservation” in my post. Perhaps I don’t understand what “belonging to a political party” is all about, since, in point of fact, I don’t belong to a political party. Your post seemed to me to be implying that belonging to a political party (in this case the LP) would preclude one from being interested in influencing the policy of any other political party (in this case the Republican party). I do think that sounds an awful lot like staying on one’s proverbial reservation. And I don’t think that bears out in reality even between the two major parties, let alone with fringe parties like the LP. The last 2 LP presidential candidates have been successful Republican politicians. I couldn’t really give much of shit about fusionism (let alone it being my “beloved creed”), but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with pushing one’s agenda within any party that will take it. And neither, apparently, does the LP who I’m supposed to be voting for.

                      What does Epi call this? Projection, yes, that’s it.

                      I haven’t called you any names during this entire exchange. Just disagreed with your point. I’m not sure you understand what “projection” means.

                  2. “I think it’s fair to ask why supporters of one party would care about the platform planks of another.”

                    I don’t care about ‘party platform planks’ as much as individual candidates and whether i think they’ve got the generally right idea about a lot of issues. They don’t have to be perfect, but they better not be screamingly retarded.

                    Like Bob Barr, for instance, who I wouldn’t have trusted to park my car. Former Drug Warrior? supporter of the Patriot Act, DOMA, etc?

                    In an election cycle where the GOP is likely to win, I’d probably vote for a LP candidate in effort to move the establishment more in my direction

                    When the choice is between “Hillary” and “other”? I will be strongly in favor of “other”…any other, as long as its not her.

                    1. And that’s why Team Red will always trot out an empty suit who doesn’t give a shit about your agenda. Because even though they are effectively indistinguishable from Team Blue, you will always pick yourself off the floor, ice your black eye, and say that they’re the lesser of evils.

                    2. I am almost embarrassed to be mistaken as less-than-fatally cynical.

                      When you say, “effectively indistinguishable”, you are avoiding admitting that there is in fact any difference.

                      And what little difference there is… matters, in my opinion.

                      If you disagree, fine. I simply think there is room for improvement in the GOP, while Dems seem to be trending towards Greek-level insanity.

                    3. The only difference between Team Red and Team Blue is the empty rhetoric they spew and who they pander to during election campaigns. When the elections are over you would be hard pressed to tell from the laws passed which team was in charge.

                    4. I don’t care about ‘party platform planks’ as much as individual candidates and whether i think they’ve got the generally right idea about a lot of issues.

                      That’s fine. And that’s one thing independents can do. Now, not to fight Warty’s battles for him, but his question was basically why should non-Republicans care about what Republicans should do. And that’s a fair question. If one felt strongly enough about what Republicans should do, I would imagine one would be, you know, a Republican.

                      Not everyone agrees with with the wave-particle duality model of libertarianism (a 3rd party wave function that collapses into a “liberty-leaning” GOP when observed) that Fusionism wrought. And it’s not fair to dismiss such disagreement as “self-important whining”, imo. At least if one’s argument is based on the energies of the liberty movement could be better directed toward the establishment of a 3rd party.

                    5. not to fight Warty’s battles for him, but his question was basically why should non-Republicans care about what Republicans should do.

                      I read the question as about what Republicans should do, tactically, to win more votes. And I can’t imagine a single reason why anyone here should give a fuck about such a thing. First, there’s the fact that few to none of us are Republicans. Second, and more importantly, politics-as-horserace is the most godawful boring fucking thing in the entire universe. Morons who are too dumb to care about harmless chimpanzee-brain substitutes for war like professional sports care about politics as team sports. There’s a reason why drooling fucks like joe and Tulpa’s many sockpuppets are obsessed with the stupid fucking shit.

                    6. “why should non-Republicans care about what Republicans should do. And that’s a fair question. If one felt strongly enough about what Republicans should do, I would imagine one would be, you know, a Republican.”

                      If you’re insistent on labeling people one thing or another i can see why that would be a concern. I’m not.

                      If I care (if slightly) at all about the GOP as a party it is because they’re the only national alternative to the Dems, and they suck. I would be more likely to support a GOP that removed its head from its ass. As of now, they’ve got Rand… who is the best thing i’ve seen in a very long time. If he doesn’t get the nomination, i’d hope at the very least he impresses others with a better vision.

                      I’m not really sure what I’m saying that’s so objectionable – in most elections, i’d hardly care about what the establishment options are (which, to confess, was how I felt in 2008.) I’d be more concerned with specific policies and advocating for changes in those areas..

                      However, in the current cycle, we seem to either be doubling down on hyperbolic progressivism… or not. Call me crazy, I’m voting “not” this year.

                    7. If you’re insistent on labeling people one thing or another i can see why that would be a concern. I’m not.

                      Do the opinion of non-Republicans count for beans when it comes to deciding on the planks during the national convention? If they decide to follow Graham’s advice, bully for them. If they don’t, good for them too. But you and I have no say in the matter, so I still think it’s ok to ask until they do decide, who cares?

                      However, in the current cycle, we seem to either be doubling down on hyperbolic progressivism… or not. Call me crazy, I’m voting “not” this year.

                      I will agree that the current crop of Dems are scary. But other than my Rand write-in vote, my strategies more revolve around a stocked pantry and my 2nd passport, tbh.

                2. beats whining self-importantly

                  Not for them! You know the guy who always talks about how he doesn’t watch TV? Non-voters are the exact same douche as that guy.

                  1. “You know the guy who always talks about how he doesn’t watch TV?”

                    But…..i…… don’t…… uh…… well, I download stuff. Used to do Netflix….

                    i have nothing against people who choose to sit things out. in most cases I do as well. The posturing that ‘everyone else is inferior’ for participating is what i object to.

          2. Or putting it another way =

            I would like to have someone worth voting for. I see more potential for such a thing emerging from people like the Rand Paul, Justim Amash, Thomas Massie type of politicians.

            they’re not there yet, but wanting them to go farther in that direction doesn’t strike me as some kind of unacceptable compromise between principle and reality

          3. And – for the sake of accuracy…

            do you really think the left is “ignoring” libertarians?

            last I checked, libertarians have been actively disparaged as anathema to everything good and true in the Prog universe for the last 4-5 years.

            The GOP isn’t much better in how they disparage libertarians particularly for lacking the Warboners necessary to lead America

            But i think your characterization is inaccurate. The left doesn’t “ignore” libertarianism. They want to destroy it. The GOP merely wants to discredit libertarians on the specific policies of immigration and national security because they think that these things are successful wedge issues (i don’t). Some very-few of them seem to think they can split the difference (e.g. Paul). I see no reason not to encourage them.

            1. Your last paragraph is perfect.

  20. As president, Graham said he would “staunchly defend religious liberty” and “devote the necessary federal resources to the protection of all Americans from any effort to hinder the free and full exercise of their rights.”

    Because defending their Property Rights is so detrimental to the notion the government can tax you and expropriate you pass?.

    1. Because defending their Property Rights is so detrimental to the notion the government can tax you and expropriate you pass?. RAYCISS!!1!1

    2. Why are you nitpicking? How do you know that’s not what he meant?

      1. Because people are really really reluctant to take up for causes that they view as racist, and it’s important to understand that.

        1. Somebody’s got to be keeping the niggers down.

    1. No it isn’t.

        1. Yeah huh. Don’t really know why you think this is clever.

  21. Gay Gay Gay. Every time I come on here for my libertarian fix/escape from Prog World, lately. FFS, you get less Gay news/discussion at The Advocate than you do here.

    End of Rant. Back to surfing sports.

    1. So you’d be a pot or Mexicans guy then.

  22. There’s a new Goatsnake album. Your culture war is even less important now.

    1. Is Goatsnake better or worse than Goatwhore?

      1. Different. If you don’t like screaming, better.

        1. There may or may not be a certain attorney who shall remain unnamed who is a certified expert in distinguishing varieties of goat noises.

        2. Electric blue goatsnake leg… in my wall.

  23. Whatever you think of the idea, the simple fact is that an amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman will not be approved by 37 states. Time declare this battle done and move on.

    1. an amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman will not be approved by 37 states

      California is host to the gay capital of the world in SF and voted to amend its state constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman 7 short years ago. Gay marriage has only won by ballot in, what, 10 states? It would probably be closer than you think.

      1. But in the span of seven years, gay marriage went from being a divisive issue to one where any dissent against the cultural pro-gay marriage industrial complex became punishable by total social ostracization and possible termination from your job.

        I’m all for it and always have been and, unlike some on here, I think the courts were a more appropriate forum for deciding the issue than the ballot box (though via an entirely different rationale based not on EP but rather freedom of contract and association derived via the first and ninth amendments and Lochner). But I’d be lying if I didn’t acknowledge how uncomfortable I am with the agitprop and strong-arm tactics of many of its supporters.

        1. All true, I’m just saying there’s still a lot of flyover country. I don’t think an amendment would pass, but I’m not sure it would be a blowout.

          1. Flyover country will change as well. We win.

            1. Yep, just like how there’s no racists anymore. Outlawing unpopular views always leads the errant to the light.

              1. Your views haven’t been outlawed you crybaby. Christ conservatives and their persecution complex.

            2. Ah, theres the factor 6 nutbar asshole Cytotoxic we all know and love. Can’t resist an opportunity to flay those dirty conservatives, with whom he agrees on nearly every political topic.

              Hey dipshit, did Canada recently have a court ruling on SSM? No? THEN WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

              1. I’m talking about the GOP’s need to pull its head out of its ass. You sure seem angry. You should probably do something about that; you’ll live longer.

                did Canada recently have a court ruling on SSM?

                Some 15 years ago. Same thing; none of the catastrophe predicted by SoCon hystericals.

            3. Well goddamn, I didn’t know those nasty heathens in “flyover” country even existed. Fuck I thought the urbanites already waged a holy war and eradicated them fuckers.

              Goddamn how could we have let this happen. Anyone that disagrees with an urbanite/suburbanite is bound to be a fucking heretic. I mean who wouldn’t want to live in a crime-riddled, concrete zoo or live so close together you can borrow the sugar by reaching through the windows to each other. I mean we do important shit, like stare at FB all day on our cool smart phones and talk about “culture” and shit.

              Burn Them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

              1. Again, with the persecution complex and crybaby-ism. Maybe conservatives would suck less if they cried less.

    2. NEEDS MORE STATE CONTROL

    1. Does it involve sodomy?

      1. Well, 30 seconds in and I hear the phrase “We do a lot of things ‘bi’, don’t we?” So I’m going with a qualified yes.

        1. We cover sodomy, transsexual russians joining ISIS, my professional advancement in spite of my incompetence, diets, and drugs. We’re poor libertarians based on our lack of mexicans to complement the sodomy and drugs.

        2. I’d be careful with the sodomy, apparently one of them has herpes (17 minutes in) and is an ‘HIV spokesperson’.

          1. The truth is that I’ve created this elaborate podcast ruse with a friend in order to convince Jesse that I’m sexually toxic and therefore he won’t mind when I renege on my promise of being sodomized if Elizabeth Warren does not become the democratic nominee for president.

            1. Well, to be fair, if you think Warren’s got a chance syphilis has probably already rotted out parts of your brain.

              1. The wager dates back over a year. There was some reason to believe that a possibility back then.

                1. Beer, maybe.

                  1. C’mon. Look at Bernie Sanders’ ascent right now. And he’s a pasty old white dude. Liz Warren is Hillary Clinton (i.e. a vagina) crossed with Sanders (i.e. a communist). She’d be a lock for the nomination if she ran.

                    Hell, not even six months ago Bill Maher pretty much dangled a million dollar donation in front of her to run.

  24. Breaking headline on CNN’s webpage:

    Prison escapee David Sweat was shot twice and taken to hospital

    The fuck? We speak American around these parts, CNN.

    1. Didn’t we start a revolution to ensure the correct use of articles?

    2. Soon they’ll be using Maths, sending their children to University, and pronouncing Aluminum with 5 syllables.

      1. I’ll just be happy when you southern upstarts put U’s in their proper place.

        1. You mean like “U-Haul”?

          We already do that.

          1. You folks need to learn proper English, like us Canadians. Bud.

        2. When I was a kid, we used to get pizza from some probably-terrible pizza place in Canton, Ohio, and I distinctly remember the box having an offensive Italian caricature with a word-bubble saying something like, “U gonna like!” So, yeah, pizza is probably the proper place for U’s*.

          *That apostrophe really looks terrible, but Us just doesn’t work.

          1. Youse gonna like

          2. having an offensive Italian caricature with a word-bubble saying something like, “U gonna like!”

            Stop confusing your memories of eating pizza while playing Mario 64 in your den, you addled codger!

          3. Ohio pizza is the worst. Columbus, Lancaster, Canton…fucking terrible, especially the highly rated ones where old people had their first pizza when they were children.

            I vaguely recall having an acceptable pizza in Athens but that was back when Athens was a fun town so I’m sure I was drunk.

    3. I dont in any way support violent criminality, but damn, that was a helluva run. Tip of the hat.

      1. Example #1,245,783 of government buffoonery. Which will be lost on the public consciousness and ultimately excused away. Better funded prisons, with more guards and higher salaries will surely protect us from a repeat event.

    4. Yeah. He should have said, “was shot twiced and then got took to the sickhouse.”

  25. The constitution already entitles polygamists to the same legal protection as gay couples who flay their parents on the altar of Dagon

  26. Wow. The stupidest of the stupid party…got one right.

    1. In fairness, the only reason he got this right is because he wants to marry John McCain.

      1. Lindsey Graham: Elect America’s First Power Bottom

        Could take the wind out of Hillary’s sail?

  27. I’m sorry, but I totally thought “he” was a lesbian when I saw that picture. Not just a lesbian, but a stereotypical lesbian. That’s all.

  28. I’m against such an amendment, but this just goes to show what a wackjob Graham is.

    How does the Supreme’s coup du jour mean you need such an amendment *less*?

  29. Stopped clock and all that…

    -jcr

  30. Did the left accept Citizens United?

  31. Well of course the gay guy is going to stick up for gay rights, duh.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.