27 comments

  1. StevePerkins says:

    Uh… how’s about you clowns turn your attention from gays, flag burning, school prayer, darwinism, rap lyrics, and video game labels long enough to CUT MY #$% TAXES?!? Why have I never read a Rep. Kingston piece here about shrinking government, but he decided I’d be fascinated by his efforts to give homos the finger?

  2. Demonbeck says:

    Steve,

    I’ll have you know that Rep. Kingston has consistently worked to shrink the size of our federal government.

    He has worked and continues to work to see that American taxpayers and their wallets are protected from the federal government. I am sure you’ll find that he has never voted for a tax increase throughout his 14 years of service at the federal level. I, for one, am proud to say that he is my Congressman and that I have voted for him every time I have been eligible to do so.

    If you have a problem with the size of the federal government, I don’t blame you, but don’t take it out on the people who are working to shrink it, take it out on the people who are working against their efforts. People like Cynthia McKinney, David Scott and John Lewis.

  3. I can’t believe we are acting on gay marriage without first addressing the unpassed emergency appropriation bill to fight the killer bee swarms making their way through Texas and towards the rest of the United States. No wonder Congress’s approval rating is in the toilet. They don’t even have their priorities in order on our make believe problems.

  4. StevePerkins says:

    Demonbeck, all you say may be true. Still, I take umbrage at politicians making hay out of “cheap vote” issues. If Kingston shows up here to offer blog commentary during the next budget or discrecionary spending debate, I’ll “take back” the remarks. However, focusing your P.R. on chickensh*t fluff like gay marriage and flag burning is always going to get rolled-eyes and a groan from me.

  5. RL says:

    Thank God Jack Kingston is protecting us from those nasty gay poeple. Get back to some real problems like the ever expanding federal government and deficit.

    Give me a break…

  6. Ronin says:

    Energy crunch, deficit spending, inflation worries, education level slipping … and we are worried about two women marrying each other. Are there any REAL leaders in this country?

  7. Demonbeck says:

    Actually, if you checked out Kingston’s blog, you would find that he is leading the way on answering the problems of the energy crunch…

    The problems concerning the education levels in this state are not a federal issue.

  8. Bill Simon says:

    Demon Sez: “The problems concerning the education levels in this state are not a federal issue.”

    Really? Sooo…that No Child Left Behind bullshit legislation wasn’t passed by people like Jack Kingston and other Bush boot lickers?

    Huh…wow….whoda thunk?

  9. Demonbeck says:

    Yes, the No Child Left Behind Act affects our state education system, but the level of education our children recieve is a function of the state.

  10. duluthmom says:

    I just read it was rejected by the House. Hopefully they’ll move on to more important issues now.

  11. StevePerkins says:

    I just read it was rejected by the House. Hopefully they’ll move on to more important issues now.

    Yup, with four months to go until the general election, there’s still plenty of time to cover sinful women taking contraception, and minorities on welfare. We may get to hear some ten-commandments-in-the-courthouse scuttlebutt if we’re lucky.

  12. rjhatl says:

    Demonbeck said:
    “Actually, if you checked out Kingston’s blog, you would find that he is leading the way on answering the problems of the energy crunch…”

    I see in Kingston’s blog post about energy policy that he thinks Nigeria is an enemy of the United States. Coming from a person born in Africa, I’m rather surprised at this, yet I haven’t seen any explanation of this from him yet.

    If Kingston has “consistently worked to shrink the size of our federal government” and “continues to work to see that American taxpayers and their wallets are protected from the federal government” (is he trying to imply that gays don’t pay taxes?), why is he speaking today on a bill to get the government even more involved in people’s lives? Surely there are many more important issues for him to be spending his time on? Or is government now small enough for him? You want my vote? Do something subatantive rather instead of wasting time on silly nonsense issues.

  13. Caitlin says:

    I can’t believe this is what the Congress is wasting their time on. I’m glad that it was rejected.

  14. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Actually, rjhatl, what a marriage amendment technically would do is KEEP the government from getting more involved in people’s lives, by stopping it from stepping in and recognizing governmentally a new form or marriage or the equivalent. Just pointing out the details….

  15. StevePerkins says:

    Oh come ON, Jeff. I don’t really have a passionate opinion on the gay “marriage”/”civil union” verbiage issue, and I think that issue’s time has not yet arrived. However, implying that a Constitutional gay marriage ban is the “small government” position to take is RIDICULOUS. That is the State telling religious organizations that they do not have the option to recognize certain unions, even if some churches wish to do so.

    State meddling in personal affairs is the whole crux of the issue. The State has an interest in marriage because it regulates to force insurers to cover spouses, it provides special status to spouses with inheritance and power-of-attorney, etc. Ideally, the State would not impose such restrictions on the voluntary interactions between people and companies. If an insurer chose not to cover spouses at a discount, it would lose customers to those which would. If people wanted to bestow power-of-attorney or special inheritance status on their spouse, they would take the 2 minutes required to sign a form about it (as part of wedding preperations.

    If the government would stay out of marriage altogether, then this gay marriage contraversy would never have come about. Some churches would forbid gay marriage, others would condone it, and the legal ramifications of what it means to be “married” would be an altogether separate thing. THERE’S your details.

  16. Ronin says:

    My point about the education level was not about the state … it was actually about the fact that the US is producing less and less math/science graduates than other nations that we compete with for jobs. All of this globalization has me concerned about the ability for the US to keep up without motivation from the government (be it through low interest student loans or the like). I guess everyone’s read “The World is Flat” by now or at least heard about it. One point that Friedman makes in there was that in the 60s Kennedy/Johnson put so much emphasis into increasing the number of quality math/science grads for the space race that it gave the US a strategic advantage in scientific innovation for several decades. And not just at NASA. Those grads worked for all of the big scientific companies that drove a lot of the early information age (i.e. IBM, Texas Instruments, EDS, etc.) Well those grads are starting to retire and we haven’t replenished them with a younger generation.

  17. Ronin says:

    Jeff … you are just justifying the fact that this breaks with the individual-rights plank of the GOP’s platform. How is this NOT the government interfering in the personal affairs of two consenting adults?

    Furthermore … let me pose the question that Neal Boortz always asks: How are heterosexuals affected by homosexuals getting married?

  18. Decaturguy says:

    “what a marriage amendment technically would do is KEEP the government from getting more involved in people’s lives, by stopping it from stepping in and recognizing governmentally a new form or marriage or the equivalent.”

    That is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. How does not recognizing a new form of marriage or an equivalent effect someone else’s marriage?

    Kingston might score some short term cheap politcial points by taking this on, but, just based on the comments of this very conservative blog, in the not so distant future he’ll look back on it with regret, just like the segregationists of the 1950’s and “60 look back on their careers.

  19. Bill Simon says:

    Personally, I hope every incumbent is tossed-out on their ear in Congress AND the entire department of “legislative counsel” up there is replaced.

  20. JP says:

    Bill..ha! I am hoping for someone to defend marriage from being used as a political wedge.. but not holding my breath.

  21. duluthmom says:

    JP, Me neither-

    With the alleged divorce rate at close to 50%, it is hard to believe that homosexual unions could have a worse impact on the sanctity of marriage.

    And Steve-re; the whole contraceptive comment, you are dead on. How do Linder, et al try to reduce the number of abortions? By opposing legislation that would prevent pharmacists from denying contraceptives to consenting adults. Or at least that’s what his letter to me intimated.

Comments are closed.