I see the President has changed his position on gay marriage – he now supports it – I suppose it’s ok to be a “flip-flopper” as long as you flop in the “Progressive” direction …

I don’t have strong feelings about gay marriage, other than to think there should be equal legal protection, at minimum – that is, ‘civil unions’ and all that that entails. I just think he’s either pandering now, or was pandering then – and I just find it amusing that his big smear towards Romney is to characterize him as a “flip-flopper” …

POTUS = Panderer of the United States.

Gay marriage is here to stay. If social conservatives had allowed civil unions for gays this would not have been the case. A majority of states will soon allow gay marriage and the SCOTUS will use that proof to invalidate states constitutions that don’t. Enjoy the remaining few states that still have a voting majority that will oppose gay marriage….it will soon be gone. (anti-gay forces still have the GOTV advantage, but not public polls.) The morality of opposing gay marriage has lost in the court of public opinion…equal rights is seen as more just. Another 10 year!. The GOP needs to look now for a new social wedge issue to replace homophobia.

Anyone with half a brain has just witnessed the TOTUS endorsing State’s rights. If he backs away from State’s Rights in the future, he’s already screwed himself with this meaningless utterance.
And if anyone is keeping score, with two more states that elect to honor marraige as between one woman and one man, that’ll equal a 2/3 supermajority of the states.

Jack, objective datum has never deterred Ed in the slightest.

And the Gallop Polls have HOW MANY participants? And how is the question phrased, exactly? Allowing “gay relations” to be legal is a far cry from supporting gay MARRIAGE.

The fact is, gay marriage has lost EVERY TIME it has gone to popular vote. That is why the homosexuals in DC and Maryland are fighting to keep it off the ballot — they know they will lose AGAIN.

So, quote all the polls you want. In the polls that matter, gay marriage loses EVERY TIME.

Next stop: Legal Polygamy!! (i.e., forcing health insurance to cover 2, 3, or 6 spouses) The possibilities for fraud will be endless. Everyone up and down the street could get married and all be covered under a single health plan

I’ve always had the same question Squiddy.

I have to have seperate plans for each of my animals (1 dog and 2 cats) but our 2 kid family pays the same monthly premium as the family with 6 kids.

At least polygamy is not immoral, Gaius.

What about a “marriage” that involved 4 gay men? Or how about 3 women, and 3 men? What about two married couples marrying each other? Is that moral? Once we go down a road, we are well on our way. If marriage is not socially understood to be man and woman, then it also follows at some point that it is not necessarily monogamous. And since it is not male/female, then the “marriages” can be 5 women if they so choose.

limited government advocates should look towards getting government out of the marriage business

Couldn’t agree more. It is the only place to go. Let people make social contracts between themselves and let the religious orgs do the ceremonies as their faiths define.

GB, regarding polygamy and health insurance – why does someone with 1 child pay the same health insurance premiums as someone with 6?

I mean, why should a person with more kids have to pay more for health insurance? Do you not want them to have kids? Do you not want their kids to be healthy? You guys are so heartless!

On that note, every family should pay no more than $200 for groceries regardless of the size of their family.

So, for example, accepting a joint tax return from a household of 5 females and 2 males is perfectly acceptable because it saves the government money. No need to ask who is doing who sexually.

defining households makes more sense in the furthering of government functions than defining marriage. Everyone should have their own insurance plan, not attached to someone else.

Not sure that defining a “household” will hold water either. The Nancy Pelosis of the world would balk at any firm definition such as all living under one roof. In fact, aren’t we all just one large family writ large anyway? For that reason, they can argue for single payer gov’t health care.

@ jack

I’m not religious, but I do recognize the natural order of things. I’m only telling you where we, as a society, are headed… The “one big large family” argument is just another way of saying that the society should share (i.e., communism) in the way a family does. A family unit is, in the strictest sense of the word, “communist” (from each according to ability and to each according to need)

Now a liberal may read this and wonder what all of this has to do with gay marriage. The answer is everything. If the idea of family erodes and eventually breaks down, and we all begin to think of ourselves as “comrades” (or some type of pseudo-family) then the argument for communism is much easier to make. They are even couching communism and socialism in biblical terms. Look at how some leftist politicians talk about being your “brother’s keeper” when they speak of universal health care, higher taxes, or anything else on their agenda.

No, it will not happen over night, but it is a slow but sure assault on our way of life.

The leaders of families are not elected.

Sure they are. Don’t you see that Obama is our collective saintly dad? Just look at how the media constantly portrayed him with a halo and/or an ethereal glow in 2008. (Not to mention the constructivist pictures of him)

Then just look at the way he preaches at us. He is the loving, caring father of us all. We are so not worthy of him.

Other than the liberal elite – who should naturally lead those of us in the proletariat – there should be no leaders. Only drones. Just look at the way that the concepts of manhood have been under complete assault the past 40 years. That is because they are training individuals to accustom themselves to seek and find support in “the collective” (government), and not from a “breadwinner”. This type of talk has been under such an attack that even many conservatives wince at it.

When my children work outside the home, what they earn is theirs. They have chores to do as part of the family; but if they undertake projects beyond that, I pay them.

Not to belabor the point, because we are agreeing here, but at some point the children took a lot more than they put in. My point is that the liberals are trying to break down the family unit to impose an alien ideology on us. And it is slowly creeping on us by the passing day.

Of course it is our duty to take care of our families, but there are more and more people out there that disagree with you and are fighting against such a concept tooth and nail every day on the other side of the river

It is more efficient for the government to own a firetruck and charge user fees and taxes to pay for it than for every homeowner to negotiate an agreement with his neighbors and buy many more firetrucks than needed or too few because of a lack of planning. A complex urban society can not use a rural social compact.

Telling your better half these days that you alone are the family dictator would sort of be like a quarterback telling his offensive guard to shut up about the play calling and follow orders without question. Next thing you know, that guard just happens to slip, leaving a gap through which the monster middle linebacker comes untouched on a blitz. That quarterback had better do some rethinking.

Then, Jacob, Jack has to word it better. Being the sole “decider” and bearer of ultimate responsibility may work in the Oval Office and elsewhere in life, like the battlefield. But the times they have changed; and the ladies I know in this life are no longer willing to be treated only as “advisors” to the divine right “king” of the household — Biblical injunctions or no Biblical injunctions. Partnership is replacing kingship.

Religious truth is like beauty. It’s in the eye of the beholder. As such, this argument can’t be couched in religious terms.

What the Bible says means nothing to a person that is not Christian. And on top of that, you have Christians like Nancy Pelosi saying that the Bible tells them to support gay marriage.

Well, Jake, I am just amused that Jack keeps quoting Holy Scripture to make what seems to be an absolutist case. That game can be played both ways. I just reminded him of two other injunctions from Christ in the same Bible. Now, I have been on this blog long enough to know that Jack is (1) a strong supporter of the Second Amendment; and (2) a strong believer in patriotism and the aggressive defense of this nation. So am I. We are, in effect, birds of a feather, so to speak. If someone starts throwing around certain other verbatim parts of Holy Scripture, both Jack and I could possibly be judged by some to be in need of an attorney of the caliber of Daniel Webster when we finally undertake the “crossing of the bar.”

Now, Jack, we do indeed seem to be on the same page.

Reb —You never fail to crack me up!

Well Jack I think you’re avoiding answering my question because you see where I’m going with it.

So I will answer your question. I know of no societal benefit nor harm that would come from gov’t recognition of gay marriage.

Now you answer my question.

“No, I do not want the government in the business of societal benefit.”

Wonderful. Then we agree on something. So why did you ask: “So what societal benefit would ensue by government sanction of your domestic arrangement?”

And if I had my way, government wouldn’t be sanctioning heterosexual relationships either.