Handel doubles down on gay hating

From her twitter feed:

“sick and tired of liberal judges subverting the will of the people to push their left wing agenda. http://bit.ly/bcEymB

(1) Mention the lib’ral judges. Check.
(2) Throw out the phrase “left wing agenda”. Check.
(3) Do all of this while throwing “teh gayz” under the bus. Check.

It’s a trifecta of what passes for conservative thought these days.

Of course, Handel was referring to the recent decision to overturn California’s Proposition 8, the measure that banned gay marriage in the state. It only took 1 hour (after the decision) for Karen Handel to, once again, make gay marriage an issue in the election.  But for some reason, I keep getting told that Karen is the “victim” in all of this.

“In war, truth is the first casualty.”–Aeschylus

[UPDATE 10:36 A.M.]  Oh yeah, speaking of truth, might as well give the full disclosure.  This “lib’ral” judge that Karen so breathlessly refers to, was appointed by Ronald Reagan.  “Liberals” in Congress successfully blocked his confirmation until after Reagan left office.  He was finally confirmed after George H.W. Bush renominated him.

143 comments

  1. ZazaPachulia says:

    This post speaks for itself. Before convincing yourself that Karen is the lesser of two evils (or even a good candidate, which some PP front-pagers bafflingly believe), take a long look at the complete picture.

    Ok, it’s hard to explain away the ethics charges and the ‘ghetto grandmothers’ remark. Very hard. But this post by Jace is Karen Handel in a nutshell. She is running a dirty campaign, remains completely uneducated, touts a “George O’Leary” resume, routinely guffaws it up with bigoted and humorless ‘The Regular Guys’ radio show in studio, and she’s still Sonny Perdue’s hand-picked successor.

    I might still vote for Handel next Tuesday. I don’t know. But I will be voting Barnes in November.

    • Jace Walden says:

      ZazaPachulia,

      Hey man, I heard you talking about visiting Republic of Georgia. I spent about a month there myself, on two separate trips, back in 2008. I’d like to hear more about your experiences over there. Anyway, not gonna do a threadjack though, so if you want to chat, just e-mail the tipline and we can take this to an e-mail conversation.

    • GaConservative23 says:

      I’m voting Deal, but I don’t mind Karen hanging out with the Regular Guys one bit. And they’re definitely not humorless. Bigoted? Maybe. Humorless? Nope.

    • Lady Thinker says:

      Zaza,

      “she’s still Sonny Perdue’s hand-picked successor.”

      Is this your opinion or has Sonny posted something I haven’t seen yet?

  2. TedLee says:

    Nice hit piece. I hardly consider Karen’s support of a law that was passed with the support and votes of the majority of Californian’s to be “gay hating” or throwing the “teh gayz under the bus”.

    Maybe you should change the title of your post to “Karen supports overturned law that was passed with the majority of Californian voters”.

    “Propaganda is that branch of the art of lying which consists in nearly deceiving your friends without quite deceiving your enemies

  3. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Wow, that was ripped right out of the Oxendine “How to Pander to Everyone and Everything” playbook.

    She better hope she wins it all because she’s burned a lot of bridges. And in this economy she’ll be hard pressed to find a job with just a GED to her name.

  4. ACCmoderate says:

    Had Karen Handel gone to college, she might’ve learned a critical skill called “research”

  5. zigmaster says:

    Barnes is going to mop the floor with her. It’s going to be so ugly. At least Deal will hold his own.

  6. Dawgfan says:

    Jace

    Apparently, you haven’t seen Deal’s latest ad. It’s all about them Gays. So that will roll out today or tomorrow (so much for that Bridge to Georgia’s future), and I’m betting that’s the only ad you’ll see until election day. That would pretty much make Deal “All In” to continue your metaphor.

    • Jace Walden says:

      He’s been all-in with the gay hating for a while now. But, according some, we’re suppose to expect better from Handel.

      Just pointing out the obvious contradiction in that expectation.

  7. Dawgfan says:

    Oh, and for all of you that are condeming Karen for pandering and dirty trick for a simple tweet I expect you’ll condem Deal with equal or greater zeal for actually spending money on creating, shooting and then broacasting this “Gay Hating ” ad

  8. therightdirection says:

    I guess you could argue that this shouldn’t be an issue to discuss, but judicial activism is definitely relevant to discuss in my opinion. I don’t care if the judge was appointed by Reagan, Souter was appointed by Bush I and look how he turned out.

    What I found extremely interesting is that the judge that made this decision is actually gay himself. How tolerant of President Reagan and Bush : ]

    • Jace Walden says:

      Judicial activism?!?

      Overturning a referendum to treat gay people like second class citizens is “judicial activism”?

      Welcome to the the new normal.

        • Jace Walden says:

          TRD,

          Just about the only time you’ll hear me argue against Federalism (there are a few other cases as well though) is when it comes to protecting the right of individuals to voluntarily associate with whomever they choose.

          A Government, at any level (Federal, State, County, City, HOA, PTA) should not have the power to discrimate against its own citizens, or treat individual citizens as “second class” because they have a different set of non-harmful social values.

          And before anyone says, “OhmiGoddemgayzISharmfultosociety”:

          Gay marriage exists in several states already. And has for years now. And guess what? The sun still rises in the East. Gay marriage does not weaken the institution of marriage. My marriage is not weakened because two dudes go to Vermont to get hitched.

          Wanting to live in a free society requires you to accept that there are behaviors that you may not agree with, that you can’t do anything about.

          • therightdirection says:

            From this point of view, why isn’t the outlaw of polygamy viewed as treating people as second class citizens.

            Is there a line that should be drawn? Who says where the right place to draw that line is? The people or a judge?

            • ACCmoderate says:

              I won’t get into how logically flawed your counter argument is.

              We’re talking about openly discriminating against homosexuals because of their sexual orientation. We’re talking about the denial of civil and human rights because someone’s nature. No one chooses to be gay. You didn’t choose to be straight, you were born heterosexual. In the same way, gays and lesbians have been created in God’s wonderful image, been given life on this planet and in this great country and shouldn’t be treated like lesser humans because of who they are.

              No one is born a polygamist. I’m not arguing whether or not polygamy is wrong. I am arguing that polygamy is a choice and the same laws that allow interracial and same-sex marriages don’t apply.

              • GaConservative23 says:

                Since when is marriage an essential human right? Can you point that out in the Constituion?

                Why is the government involved in marriage at all?

                • polisavvy says:

                  “Why is the government involved in marriage at all?” I couldn’t have said it better myself.

                • Since when is marriage an essential human right? Can you point that out in the Constituion?

                  Not all essential human rights are spelled out in the constitution. I believe using the restroom is an essential human right. That doesn’t mean I can go anywhere I want or whenever I want. But I don’t see anywhere in the Constitution that tells me I’m allowed to pee. The Constitution, as Jace mentioned somewhere else recently, wasn’t written to give us rights. It was meant to tell the federal government what it wasn’t allowed to do.

                  “Why is the government involved in marriage at all?”

                  I agree with you here.

              • Lady Thinker says:

                ACC,

                You and I don’t normally agree on very much, but you wrote a superb post, very insightful and full of compassion.

            • Jace Walden says:

              TRD,

              I’ll see the “whataboutthepolygamists” argument and raise you another “voluntary association”.

              No difference. A guy marrying multiple chicks, as long as all three are consenting adults, is a voluntary association. It doesn’t affect anyone other than the participating individuals.

              Government should not have a say in it. And the judiciary is there to protect people from an overreaching government. The better question is why should ANYONE have to submit to the state to legitimize their love for another person?

              • therightdirection says:

                If we had multiple marriages, would that not give people the incentive to just start marrying any body so they can receive the tax benefits, even if it isn’t a true relationship?

                Though that goes to your question about submitting to the state your love for another person. We could just get rid of the tax breaks, the binding contract of a marriage, and let people claim themselves married. Divorce would be even easier now!

                • B Balz says:

                  It is not just tax benefits that are problematic, Regardless of which side of this issue you choose, everything from adoption, education, private/public benefits, estate planning, and especially, insurance, are affected by marriage.

                  Not to sound crass, but has anyone considered how much big insurance may be against gay marriage due to the AIDs claim liability?

                  Once again, three posts, back to back, days before a GOP runoff.

                  These guys have to be Roy moles, nobody can be this dense.

      • GaConservative23 says:

        I’m sorry brother, but I gotta disagree with you on this one.

        The decision essentially means that everyone’s vote in California who voted for Prop 8 didn’t count. This is some judge (Reagan-appointed or not) ignoring the will of the people in favor of his personal beliefs on the subject. I invite you to read his opinion and tell me its constitutionality.

        Prop 8 passed in perhaps the most liberal state in the union. Exit polls show that even a large majority of people who voted for Obama voted for Prop 8 (especially African Americans).

        The will of the people was essentially ignored.

        • Jace Walden says:

          Dude,

          Our Government has three branches for a reason. Checks and balances are meant to apply to the “will of the people” as well if the rights of individuals are being infringed upon.

    • ACCmoderate says:

      Yeah, freaking activist judges trying to tell us how to live. What’s next, a ruling that says a ban on interracial marriage is unconstitutional?

      What’s that? Loving v. Virginia? Damn those activist judges!

  9. Monica says:

    I am for gay marriage. I do not support people going to the polls, voting on an issues, and then a judge throwing their decision out. What’s the point of voting on prop. 8? What’s the point of voting at all, lets just have the courts make decisions for us. I was once roommates with two conservative gay men and they both are AGAINST gay marriage. Don’t jump all over people for their views, especially when they’re related to their religious beliefs. While I wish Handel was woman enough to support the gay community openly, as she obviously once did, she’s still way better than that corrupted crook Nathan Deal.

    • iamnotasocialist says:

      “I do not support people going to the polls, voting on an issues, and then a judge throwing their decision out. What’s the point of voting on prop. 8?”

      So, in your mind, it’s okay if voters pass a referendum re-enslaving black people, and that cannot be checked by the courts?

      There’s a reason why judicial review exists.

      • Jace Walden says:

        That is also my favorite response to the whole, “Ohmigodit’sthewillofthepeople” argument.

        Conservatives will always say, “that’s not a fair comparison.”

        Uh, yeah it is.

        • Doug Grammer says:

          I’ll say it’s a fair comparison. We have a system in place. It’s not perfect, but it works. Legislatures, and occasionally voters, pass laws. The executive branch should enforce the laws. The judicial branch gets to look at the laws to see if the are constitutional or in agreement with precedent. When the judicial branch makes a ruling, it can be appealed all the way up to the SCOTUS. If the legislature doesn’t like the ruling, they can rewrite the law in a way so that it might pass the judge’s smell test, and the whole process starts over again.

          • ACCmoderate says:

            Thats exactly what the judicial branch did here. It took a look at Prop 8, ruled it was unconstitutional and now the defense (which didn’t provide any valid testimony to support their cause) will appeal it on up the line.

            I expect this issue to reach SCOTUS and expect this decision to stand.

            We’ve had a lot of laws in this country (cough Jim Crow cough) that were overturned by the Courts for the betterment of our nation and the betterment of our society. People need to quit ripping on the Judicial Branch, those folks might be the most level-headed members of our government.

            • Doug Grammer says:

              I don’t have a problem with it, but I’m not the only conservative in this state. I just wanted to point out that people yelling that ALL Republicans or conservatives feel are certain way are usually wrong.

              • Jace Walden says:

                Doug, I didn’t say that “all” conservatives say it. Or “all” Republicans.

                It was a general statement. I don’t feel like I should have to say “in general” everytime I make a broad statement.

                • Doug Grammer says:

                  You said: Conservatives will always say, “that’s not a fair comparison.”

                  You could have used the words “most” or “usually.” You used the word “always.”

                  You may not feel like you have to use the words “in general,” but be prepared to get called out when you don’t.

                  • Jace Walden says:

                    Called out by who? You?

                    HAHAHAROFLMAO

                    I’ll just stick to saying whatever I want, whenever I want and not losing one minute of sleep over what you think about it.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      By anyone who feels like it. Feel free to laugh at me and laugh at the world. By all means, enjoy yourself.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                What you may not realize is that ACC was agreeing with me, or at least we were on the same page together. I find that funny.

      • Progressive Dem says:

        If there was a referendum in the south in 1964 to overturn the Civil Rights Act and return to policies of segregation, it would have passed.

        The judiciary is an equal branch of government.

        • iamnotasocialist says:

          THANK YOU. All of you freaking conservative GOP sockpuppets STILL have not addressed my question. If I go out and get a referendum passed saying that it’s okay to lynch people, does that mean it’s therefore the law? NO IT DOES NOT! If something is unconstitutional, then it is the Judiciary’s constitutional job (or at least the job set forth in the first important SCOTUS case of Marbury) to engage in judicial review. You lawyers should know that, or else I will send a letter to the bar on your behalf asking for your license to be revoked.

          If a law is unconstitutional, it is the prescribed job of the judiciary to overturn it. If you have a problem with that, please address your concerns to the graves of Marbury, Madison, or hell, even John Jay.

  10. nast says:

    Comrades,
    Can one of you kindly forward me your copy of the left-wing agenda? Mine must be outdated. I came to the Magnolia Ballroom expecting to find the seminars “Forcing Your Neighbor’s Children Onto Birth Control” and “Coping With Your Male Heterosexual Caucasian Self-Loathing” only to find some type of personal finance workshop going on instead. Clearly we won’t need that in our forthcoming Communist/Marxist/Obamaist Utopia!

    Thanks.

  11. janna says:

    At this point it doesn’t matter if Handel or Deal wins. They are busy swatting gnats while Barnes is the lion eating their ass.

  12. Chris says:

    if you deny the courts had a right to decide the constitutionality of Prop 8, then the courts had no right to override the people’s will as enacted by the legislature in Heller either.

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      I don’t think it’s quite so black-and-white, Chris.

      But first, a disclaimer: My personal views on gay marriage are: It doesn’t effect me. Straight people get married every day, and I never hear about it. Gay people get married elsewhere in this country, and I’m still none-the-wiser—planets still revolve, it’s still hot outside, life goes on. Ideally, if the issue has become this explosive/distracting, we’d do just as well getting government out of marriage altogether (yes, there’s a party for that). Another perspective of mine on that is much more cynical/snide, in that the divorce rate is 50%, so marriage is rather moot these days, but hey,’ to each his own.’

      D.C. v. Heller occurred within the boundaries of D.C. Now, that is 100% federal territory. If anything, more than any other territory or state in the nation, the Federal constituion should apply in D.C. Theoretically, they should be the most free community in the nation, in terms of application of the Bill of Rights. D.C. v. Heller determined whether or not an individual possessed the right to keep and bear arms while in the District of Columbia—which, in this case in which 2nd amendment could be directly applied as a restriction on government—the answer was, hell yes. Now, McDonald v. Chicago was the one to watch with interest, because the question came up as to whether or not the federal constitutional limitations of government could apply all the way down the chain to local municipalities.

      The U.S. Constitution, on the other hand, says all of the below about marriage, specifically:

      ” “

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        I should add, this:

        It works both ways, though. People occupying themselves with getting a “DOMA” impletemented at the federal level are wasting their time, as well.

        Going by what the U.S. Constitution says on the matter of marriage (” . . . . “), I see neither support nor opposition for it, at the federal level.

        UNLESS—and I would buy this argument—the one case in which the Federal government may possess the authority to intervene, is by the full faith and credit clause, Art.4, Sec.5: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

        By this argument, you could address the existing problem with GA’s recent marriage amendment, 2004, which essentially (wrongfully, I might add), refuses to recognize licenses of marriages of gays from out-of-state. I’m not sure whether or not Prop.8 goes that far or not, but if it does, then the federal courts have the power to intervene. However, there is a difference in “defining marriage”, and upholding the Full Faith & Credit clause. GA can define marriage any way it wants, but it still has to honor New Hampshire’s marriage licenses between gays.

        Like I said, it’s not simply cut-and-dry. There are many loopholes and ways to skirt around it, for both sides. Should it tie up all the air-time for GA gubernatorial candidates? Better question: Is it an issue that they’re actually going to do anything about? Nope, on both counts.

  13. ACCmoderate says:

    I see a lot of similarities between Karen’s campaign and John McCain’s presidential bid.

    Both of them come from a party that had been in power for the past 8 years. Both of them are attempting to run away from their predecessor in office. Both are trying to look like the “reformer” and the “outsider.” Both fail to realize that “reformer” and “outsider” aren’t terms that correctly apply to them.

    McCain was a moderate that had to run far far to the right in order to win his party’s nomination.

    Handel is a moderate that has run far far to the right in order to win her party’s nomination.

    McCain burned a lot of the bridges he would have had with moderates and independents and tried to return to the center in the general election only to find that his support there had dwindled.

    We’ll see what happens with Handel, but I have a feeling it’ll be the same ole story.

    You can’t run one direction and then expect to turn around and start going the other way without coming across as a phony and a hypocrite.

        • ACCmoderate says:

          Obama was a Democrat espousing a message of better leadership and a stronger voice for the middle and working classes.

          Barnes is spreading a less hope-y change-y message, but he’s still all about better leadership and a stronger voice for the middle and working classes.

          I don’t get this “running away from Obama” thing. The only reason that Republicans are upset that Barnes didn’t show up to the Obama event is because they were hoping to get a snapshot of the two together that they could run on when the general rolls around.

          Save me the crap. Lord knows Handel and Deal would have dodged a George W. Bush appearance. How come no one is asking Sonny to campaign for them? Oh. Right. Everyone hates that fat idiot.

      • Doug Deal says:

        Te problem with McCain was not that he was a moderate, he wasn’t, it was that he was wishy washy and seemingly nothing but his whims guided his principles.

        A true moderate, of which there are none in any party, would likely do very well, but the two party primary system makes any type of true moderate mathematically impossible to wind up as a party’s nominee. So you end up with people from both side who simply pander to the active extremists, often times in direct opposition to their core beliefs, if such things even exists in a modern day politican.

  14. NoTeabagging says:

    The word ‘Liberal’ has no meaning except as a derogatory label.
    I’d like to see one of our astute pollsters ask folks, “What is a liberal?”
    and see how many check the ‘don’t know’ box.

  15. Jane says:

    I wonder if her attempt to appear the most anti-gay of the Republican candidates is her attempt to win over the McBerry vote? I am about as right wing as you can get, but when a candidate tries to pander to the right of me, I begin the worry. Either they really are nuts or they are just pandering for votes.

    • ACCmoderate says:

      If she wants the McBerry vote she should just pull up the Georgia Sex Offender Registry and start knocking on doors.

  16. I voted for Handel in the primary, because she had been on the receiving end of this kind of ugliness. She and her supporters have made me feel stupid for casting that vote ever since. I’ll still be voting in the runoff for the downticket races, but I’m leaving the governor box blank. This election has become a race between Monds and Barnes for me… if Roy polls within striking distance come November, I’ll have no problem giving him my vote.

    • LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

      So you cast a sympathy vote for Handel instead of voting for her based on her policy positions? Oh wait, she doesn’t have any policy positions.

    • griftdrift says:

      I voted for her not based on sympathy but on the belief that she would be a practical leader who steadily steers the ship.

      This type of lunacy trumps my strongest desire for practicality.

      • B Balz says:

        Get up a couple of decades and you will realize “tilting at windmills” to describe an act of attacking imaginary enemies is not just a literary phenomena.

  17. Atticus Grinch says:

    For all the “conservatives” who hate “legislating from the bench” and “liberal” judges ignoring the will of the people …

    where was your outrage when the US Supreme Court overturned the will of city council in New London, Connecticut and told the city they could condemn the property of Mr. Kelo for economic purposes? The City wanted it, but the Court said NO. Of course, conservatives applauded this act of judicial activism, becasue they approved of the result.

    where was your outrage when the US Supreme Court overturned the will of the city council in Washington DC and told the City they could not regulate firearms kept in private homes for self defense. The City wanted to severely regulate guns, the Court said NO. Again. much applause from conservative-GOP circles for the activist court, because they like the result.

    As has been said many times, an activist judge is one who strikes down a law that you like. A wise, common-sense Judge is one that you agree with.

    • WCHeadhunter says:

      In both the cases you mention SCOTUS sided with The Constitution. Hardly examples of “activism”.

    • Lady Thinker says:

      Atticus,

      I guess it depends on which side of an issue one is on as to whether or not a ruling is fair. I studied the Slip Opinion Kelo ET AL v. City of New London ET AL. (2005) in which the Federal Supreme Court in a 5/4 decision, allowed a governmental seizure to be sold to a private company to rebuild a city’s tax base and create jobs for the residents. I think Kelo was wronged.

      As you may know, Tennessee had a similar situation when the state wanted to build the TVA and the citizens wanted to stay on their land. The citizens lost.

      One could make the argument that liberal judges upsurp the rights of the individuals and there are too many examples to relay here. Once again, I think the liberal judge label depends on whether one is on the winning side or the losing time.

  18. Doug Deal says:

    I think both sides in this ridiculous gay marriage debate need to burn in the hottest fire in hell for the sole reason that we are current around 12 Trillion in debt and projects are for that to expand to who knows what and many of you guys are actually going to base a vote on anything based on this.

    Life is unfair, tough. All kinds of single people who live together that don’t have sex with each other would love to share assets, property, end of life issues, but they are excluded from this because they do not happen to be gay.

    The problem is that there is no “civil union” or some sort of contractual arrangement under law for anyone who shares a domicile, and there should be. The solution is not to create a whole new special class while reeming it to single people even more.

    In any event, this is all trifles compared to the main issue, that we are spending our way to oblivian and no one cares because they are too concerned about whining about the fact that someone else got an extra thimble for a gravy on their potatoes.

    We end up with the government we deserve, and if the quality of citizens on this board are any indication, as bad as it is, it is likely many times better than we have coming.

    • griftdrift says:

      I’m sorry but the fallacy here is mind boggling.

      “The problem is that there is no “civil union” or some sort of contractual arrangement under law for anyone who shares a domicile, and there should be.”

      There already is. It’s called marriage. A government contract available to anyone…..unless you are gay.

      It’s not about creating a “special class”. It’s about denying a particular service to a particular class.

      And that is wrong. And I don’t care if I burn in hell for believing so.

      • Doug Deal says:

        grift, I know words are hard, and reading comprehension is not something everyone gets, but for someone who has such a high opinion of your own conclusions, I expected better from you.

        “Gay Rights” activists are not calling for the ability for everyone to get married regardless of sexual status, they are calling for them to get special treatment under the law that they are perfectly willing to let others go without.

        In short it is called hypocricy.

          • Doug Deal says:

            I love how you try to poison the well by limited the definition. “Non-related and married”.

            The injustice has nothing to do with marriage, it has to do with the benefits that go along with marriage. Married people have protections in court about testifying against their spouse, they have protection of assets, shared retirement benefits, end of life issues, and taxes (particularly with a single breadwinner). The label “married” has no value beyond that besides what individuals ascribe to it on their own.

            Single people such as widowed retired sisters, two single people (2 men, 2 women or one of each) with children from a divorse who want to share living arrangements and a household to make ends meet could all benefit from a “domestic partner” or “civil union” or whatever you want to call it to allow them the same benefits being ask for by you for gays.

            But, since they are not sticking their body parts into each other, they are somehow less worthy of such protections and benefits under law.

            I know, I know, you probably want to prove your “enlightened” credentials to your hipster friends, so you have to take the view you are taking, but in reality it is a load of crap.

            Pushing for “gay marriage” to be recognized by the state is just a call to create another special class with special priveledges. The only equitable way to go is to allow any 2 people who share a domicile on a long term basis, not just to allow it because they want to have sex with each other.

            Beyond that, big freakin’ whoop. As “civil rights” issues go, I would put this degree of “suffering” way at the back of the bus.

            There are much much bigger issues to be concerned about and anyone fixated on this needs to get some priorities. When we are 100 trillion in debt, and the government falls apart, unable to pay it’s bills, I have a feeling we will all get reintroduced to what hardship and injustice is truly all about.

              • Doug Deal says:

                You are way too intellectually lazy to be so pompous.

                Go ahead and call everyone “gay bashers” or whatever it is you rely on when you lose an argument on this topic.

                • Jace Walden says:

                  Doug,

                  I hope you burn in hell for engaging in a debate on gay marriage.

                  In all seriousness, dude, what the hell is your problem lately? I would agree with you 100% that the number 1 problem in our state and our nation is wholesale fiscal irresponsibility of both parties. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t other problems out there, or that the other problems just go away.

                  If we lose the ability to focus on more than one problem at a time, then maybe this country is going downhill.

                  And going back to gay marriage…

                  Maybe you’re right. Maybe the government recognition of “marriage” and the benefits it assigns to married people is the real problem. Like I’ve said 20 times on these two threads: Get the government out of the marriage business and take away all of the special priviledges. Treat the interaction between the “married” just like you would treat any contractual agreement in civil court.

                  • Doug Deal says:

                    Jace,

                    The burn in hell comment was hyperbole. I was just making the statement that it is ridiculous to make this the One Issue to Rule Them All. It is the same thing that happens with the abortionistas on both sides. Changing your vote because of a comment made regarding the outcome of this court case is ludacris in the extreme. It’s clear that if THIS is the issue that determines who you are voting for, you never really should have had the right to vote in the first place.

                    Further, I am sick of the “you oppose me so you must be a hater of _____”. Grift is the perfect example of this mentality, and I would not otherwise care, but he is the first to criticize simplistic mentality in others, and hypocrisy and intellectual laziness drive me crazy.

                    The dirty truth is that neither side in this “debate” (more like debasement) really wants a resolution. They just want to play in your face politics with the other side to keep the issue alive. The solution is easy. Make “marriage” a religious institution and the state’s roll would be to create “civil unions” or whatever you want to call them so that people who share a life/domicile for a long term basis can be treated equitably under the law. Because of the advantages of this type of compact, there really also should be serious penalties for early termination, like loss of tax status, payback of tax benefits and others.

                    But, instead, people just want the ability to shout in someone else’s face about how inferior their world view is to their own to prop up their own sorry self worth.

                    • griftdrift says:

                      “Further, I am sick of the “you oppose me so you must be a hater of _____”. Grift is the perfect example of this mentality”

                      Please provide examples

                    • Doug Deal says:

                      So when you discount someone’s beliefs as being biased for being a member of a group that they are in favor of, you are actually secretly bashing that group.

                      Good to know. Your ability to lump people together to make them easier to hate is quite amazing. The more I find out about how you come to conclusions the more poorly considered and arbitrary they appear to be.

                      Try to stop backtracking rationale out of a desired outcome and instead try looking at evidence and THEN forming a conclusion.

                      In any event, I disagree with Erick’s conclusion, as it would imply that a straight person would be automatically biased the other way.

                    • griftdrift says:

                      Erick believes that a U.S Appeals Court Judge subverted his sacred oath to uphold the Constitution because he is gay.

                      As I said, to me that is bashing. YMMV

                      Is that the only example you’ve got?

                    • griftdrift says:

                      No. You did not. So I’ll ask it again in case there is any confusion.

                      What non-related couple besides a gay one are denied the ability to be married?

                    • griftdrift says:

                      I have been accused of many things in this thread. Ignorance, hypocrisy, lack of reading comprehension.

                      If the gun fight is going to be a flame war then let’s have it. I’m an old hand and you’d be surprised at how creatively I can get around a spam filter.

                      None of that obfuscates the fact that Doug has not answered my question.

                  • B Balz says:

                    Not trying to get in your face, Grift, I read your blog, enjoy many of your comments here.

                    I am sure, in your mind, this questions “…What non-related couple besides a gay one are denied the ability to be married?…” seems to matter.

                    I think much of what the LGBT ‘community’ seeks is overblown hogwash. I know quite a few folks that are fabulous, and a lot of them don’t like the majority of gays. People quietly go about their business everyday without making all this hoopla over their sexual preference. I am tired of it.

                    BTW, everything and everyone is not a threat, I have been pretty gracious to you over the years, blog-wise.

                    • griftdrift says:

                      B I respect you and will clarify. The reason I insist on the question is because Doug insist gays are demanding a “special right”. They are not. They are the only group that fit that category that are denied access to a government benefit. That is not “special”, that is unequal.

                      The fact that Doug continues to not answer says to me that he knows this.

                    • B Balz says:

                      Well, I do think it is a special right.

                      Since the gov’t is in the marriage business, a relatively small group is asking for legitimacy based on their sexual preference. That is a special right, not withstanding some of the brilliant con law commentary.

                      When the gov’t is out of the marriage business, ie, revising the tax code, and all of society’s laws are adjusted, (realty, healthcare, probate, etc.) let’s visit this topic.

                      Until then, toughsky-poopsky, life is just not always fair. My fabulous neighbors had a ceremony, they have their financial, legal affairs in order, and could care less about this ‘issue’.

                      A lot of people are that way. I’m just saying….

                    • griftdrift says:

                      Then we will have to agree to disagree. And note we can do it without the name calling.

                      However I would point out that it is more than just sexual orientation and it is only sexual orientation. A gay couple are far more than as someone so crudely put it “where they stick their body parts”. Just as a straight couple is more than that boilerplate biology.

                      The desire for union is about a commitment to common interest and a shared life and what results from that life. Just like any straight couple.

                      Yes there are ways to work around this without the governments acknowledgement of that social contract. But they are difficult and not foolproof.

                      The fact that the government singles them out for this burden is in my mind unconstitutional. And it’s just plain wrong.

                    • B Balz says:

                      Fair enough.

                      You know this issue would be resolved in two days, if instead of being about ‘gay’ it was about the rights of dog owners.

                      One problem with this issue is that most people, small minded ot not, simply don’t care, they are not gay. Add to that the prejudices people attach, and well, it is a tough sell.

                      You are right, committed couples have a lot more than the sex aspect of their relationship, regardless of orientation.

                    • AubieTurtle says:

                      I think you are correct B Balz that most people don’t have a strong opinion on this issue since it doesn’t affect them personally. That’s why eventually marriage that is blind to sexual orientation is going to happen. Those who want it are not going to stop demanding it. The public will eventually get sick and tired of the issue and just want it to go away. It’s hard to fight against or for something you don’t feel strongly about. While many of those opposed feel just as strongly about it as those was are for, I suspect that they’re out numbered since only a few have strong feelings of opposition and most have only weak opposition. In the end, once it becomes legal, they’ll run out of energy and be marginalized. This is exactly how it played out in Canada. Most of the population were weakly opposed but when it became legal, they didn’t want to keep on fighting. Only a small number of hardcore opponents are trying to get marriage restricted to hetrosexual couples now and the public at large totally ignores them. The issue is settled and almost no one wants to go through the battle again. Even the Conservative Party is afraid to reopen the issue since everyone is sick and tired of dealing with it. Those who wanted marriage simply wanted it more and would never stop fighting until they got what they wanted. There is no reason to expect those fighting for the same rights in the US to be any different or any less passonate in the fight.

                      But we’re not there yet, especially in Georgia. Until then, expect it to be political fodder which is too bad because there are so many other issues that need to be addressed. We could quickly put this one behind us and work on economic issues but we won’t. It’s going to be a ugly tough road but the destination is going to be the same regardless of how long it drags on.

                    • Doug Deal says:

                      Yeah, grift, you throw out bombs like calling Erick a gay basher and you “did this without name calling”.

                      You are pretty much the biggest hypocrit on this blog.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      IMO, the problem is the tax code. People can file as married and get a break on their taxes. It is a case of using the tax code to promote behavior, such as getting married.

      Living wills, powers of attorney, and other legal items can solve most of the issues facing a homosexual union. The one thing that can’t be changed is the filing status with the IRS.

      I think marriage should be between a man and a woman. Not between a man and a woman and the IRS. Unless there are a lot of people out there trying to marry their sister, do we really need government involved in marriage?

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        I agree with you here. Of course, I’m a young single male, busy with college, and marriage is the last thing on my list of things to do. I do think that a lot of the benefits are enticing people to get married for the wrong reasons. I heard that a long time ago, people once based their relationships on something called ‘love’, commitment, loyalty, etc. The cynic in me thinks it’s a load of horse $#&%, but there are some legends out there.

      • AubieTurtle says:

        Which is why, funny enough, the “fair” tax is a pro-gay policy. Unless I’m misinformed, there is no special provision in it for marriage. Doubt Linder and Boortz will talk about that aspect of it anytime soon.

          • James Fannin says:

            I can hear the Deal ad now. An announcer with a creepy voice and horror music in the background “For some it’s the last straw. Neal Boortz and John Lindner want to force us all to provide support for gays and are lying about it. ” Bring up the heavy bass.

          • Icarus says:

            I have had so little sleep, and then when I try to catch up on comments, …. , this…,

            ………,

            …..,

            I honestly don’t know if I’m supposed to laugh or cry right now.

  19. Doug Deal says:

    Well a stopped clock is right twice a day, and on military time, half that often.

    I am about fed up with both parties and the boogymen of class/group/status warfare they create every 2 years to cover for their complete incompetence and corruption. I sometimes think the Libertarian party is just a ridiculous side show to keep people from fleeing the two major parties and finding a viable third party.

  20. saltycracker says:

    Jace,

    Lots of folks in Utah blogging displeasure with the public cost of polygamy……
    Guy with five wives, 20 kids, one legal, the others, single, unemployed mothers entitled to benefits……not exactly living the independent, none of your business life in the desert……

    • Jace Walden says:

      That’s because of the financial benefits that the government assigns to “married” people. Take away the government’s involvement in marriage and let “married” people take care of themselves.

      • B Balz says:

        I mean, you are on to a goodly portion of what the issue is about. Legitimacy is the other part. Cannot forget that part.

Comments are closed.