by John Salyer
One of the fundamental principles underlying much of what today’s small government advocates have to say is the idea, attributed to John Stuart Mill, that people have no right to take over other people’s decisions about their own lives. Yet today, as government expands its reach and more and more citizens give up their freedoms, government bureaucrats begin to think of themselves as shepherds and the citizens as their sheep. As one economist notes, “Tragically, too many of us are apparently willing to be sheep, in exchange for being taken care of, being relieved of the burdens of adult responsibility and being supplied with ‘free’ stuff paid for by others.” In ways large and small, if government does more, many people end up doing less.
Yes, we all make mistakes. But do governments not make bigger and more catastrophic mistakes?
One of the key differences between mistakes that we make in our own lives and mistakes made by governments is that bad consequences force us to correct our own mistakes. But government officials usually cannot admit to making a mistake without jeopardizing their whole careers.
Let’s take the example of Chico being $50 Million+- in debt. How many of you even knew that? I certainly didn’t until I made the mistake of actually starting to pay attention to what is going on with Chico’s bureaucrats.
Search “Townhall Shepherds and Sheep” on the internet for more on this interesting but unfortunately true subject.
“One of the fundamental principles underlying much of what today’s small government advocates have to say is the idea, attributed to John Stuart Mill, that people have no right to take over other people’s decisions about their own lives.”
Except, of course, when those decisions have to do with marriage and abortion. In which case, many “small government advocates” are more than willing to take over decisions for other people’s personal lives.
Or simply maintain what has always been a majority civic and moral ideal.
You always forget, Chris, it is your side that seeks dramatic change…your side that is engaged in disrupting and replacing basic values and tenets of our society.
Marriage and pregnancy are not government imposed traditions and values. They are not the same as ordinances, programs, and taxes. Couples coming together to pro-create and form families are the first civic unit and this has been the basis of all civil society…no small thing.
You can choose to push, shove and gripe these very different values all you want but at least take some responsibility for the fact that you are the one demanding change.
Wonder if the mega data storage facility being built in Utah, I believe, and the strong-arm tactics of the IRS has anything to do with what Maxine Waters said about Obama’s database information on us.
Maxine Waters: Obama Has a Database on Everything About Every Individual:
http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/05/maxine-waters-obama-has-put-in-place-secret-database-with-everything-on-everyone-2642914.html
First lets understand that the author is saying, especially the second paragraph. “one of the key differences between mistakes that we make in our own lives and mistakes made by governments is that bad consequences force us to correct our own mistakes. BUT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS USUALLY CANNOT ADMIT TO MAKING A MISTAKE WITHOUT JEOPARDIZING THEIR WHOLE CAREERS”. As I read it and agree there is way too many government mandates as to how we should be living our lives in governments opinion. Given those rules America would not be here today, nor would anyone’s ability to voice their opinion, pro or con. If Birth and marriage are going to be the examples singled out, I would offer aspects and fundamental rights concerning these two issues have been manipulated politically, if only for the benefit of those elected, and special interest voters that put them in office. I feel these issues should be rights that are protected by free choice, not mandated. However the reality is they are more important to political maneuvering and its intervention, than beneficial to those effected by what should be a free choice. Much like prohibition, it will not stop people at all if they inclined to those life choices, not to mention the increase in crime as some find ways to skirt the dictates. A current example is the hurried Obama care laws of today , it clearly shows Government cannot govern effectively, nor do their decisions solely benefit voters without political purpose for those making the laws. End result, a larger and more dependent America on Government programs, and a major dwindling of personal freedom and self-reliance.
Not knowing is the ultimate problem.
I watched Holder’s committee hearing yesterday and I’d like to know what the he** does he know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fCF_LiS4l4&feature=player_embedded
Tina: “Or simply maintain what has always been a majority civic and moral ideal.”
I’m sure these kind people saw themselves the same way.
When will you learn that appealing to tradition is not sufficient to justify your position?
The fact remains that in the areas of marriage and women’s bodies, you believe you are better at making decisions for people than they could be themselves. That’s why you voted in 2008 to annul the marriages of complete strangers. Whatever your excuses, I don’t understand how anyone could do something like that and then sleep well at night.
“You always forget, Chris, it is your side that seeks dramatic change…”
Forget? Nonsense, I take pride in this. Sometimes, society needs dramatic change. Allowing gays to have their marriages federally recognized on the same level as straight marriages will be a dramatic change for the better. It will improve the lives of thousands of people, and help free them from the oppression that gays have lived under for a very long time, for no good reason. It’s clearly a net positive, and the anti-gays have given no rational reason to believe otherwise.
“your side that is engaged in disrupting and replacing basic values and tenets of our society.”
Now this, however, is bullshit. I’ll let Ellen DeGenerous respond:
“I want to be clear and here are the values that I stand for. I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you want to be treated, and helping those in need. To me those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for.”
I believe those are the “basic values and tenets of our society.” Or at least, they should be. If they aren’t, then whatever the basic values and tenets of our society are *should* be replaced.
“Couples coming together to pro-create and form families are the first civic unit”
Please do not pretend that you believe marriage only includes “couples coming together to pro-create.” As you know, there are millions of couples who either cannot procreate or have no intention to do so, who get married in this country every day, and you have no objection. The procreation argument is a red herring, and to be quite frank, only stupid people use it.
I do agree with you that marriage is about forming families. Gay marriages do that as well as straight marriages.
“You can choose to push, shove and gripe these very different values all you want but at least take some responsibility for the fact that you are the one demanding change.”
Damn straight, I demand change.
Hmmmm. In my somewhat less than humble opinion, the trouble with this country is we got a lot a sheep insisting that they should be shepherds … unti push comes to shove … and they turn out to be sheep, and start sniveling for “somebody” to fix “it” … blame the brown people for “it” … or whatever.
What’s right about this country is that us sheep get to choose the shepherds.
But way too many of the sheep lack the humility and grace, not to mention intelligence, to give the matter serious thought, and so we wind up with wolves instead of shepherds.
Chris is so cute when carrying water for Obama, but he is never more cute when carrying water for the redefinition of marriage.
I wonder what these hypocrites and bigots will think of the approval of plural, interspecies, and pedophile marriage (aka Islamic marriage), and will Chris or a future Chris carry water for them?
DAMN STRAIGHT WE DEMAND A CHANGE!
On the subject of liars —
When can we expect a strongly worded “Please don’t lie” letter to the White House from Chris over the Benghazi slaughter?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/newly-released-benghazi-emails-directly-contradict-white-house-claims_724603.html
Re: “The procreation argument is a red herring, and to be quite frank, only stupid people use it.”
Well, no ad hominem there!
Shall I bother to delineate the other fallacies Chris has committed in this thread? I think not. Been there, done that. Once was enough. Deconstructing Chris is a bore anyway.
Besides, Chris would only again deny any valid critical analysis of his arguments because he is a stupid, facile, boorish jackass with no capacity for self examination or understanding of formal, classical logic and reason.
Peggy you can always count on Maxine Waters to let the cat out of the bag in terms of their real intentions. She’s the one who let it slip that they intended to control the oil companies. Remember that video?
I would like to know how fast president Obama’s former campaign organization, which has been restructured as “Organizing for America” as a 501(c)4 got their nonprofit status.
I’d also like to know how fast the IRS okay’d the over sixty Soros sponsored nonprofits.
“I’m sure these kind people saw themselves the same way.”
You are so predictable!
If you like images you should take a gander at the one of the burned to the ground Korean grocery store that was destroyed during the Los Angeles race riots. It’s also a very disturbing picture from the past. But it has little to do with you taking responsibility for wanting change the definition and legal basis for marriage.
I’m not asking the government to change the definition of marriage…you are…be responsible! I am also not asking the government to change abortion law; I am asking the American people to re-establish a moral core with respect to marriage and the unborn…laws will follow
I think I told you in a recent article that we could simplify the tax law and a lot of the problems for the LGBT community would go away. Get the government out of marriage and people can do as they please.
FYI: Marriage and race are not the same; a black person has no other choice than to be black (“…and die,” Morgan Freeman). The comparison of marriage to the cause of civil rights for blacks is very offensive.
“The fact remains that in the areas of marriage and women’s bodies, you believe you are better at making decisions for people than they could be themselves.”
The fact is, I draw the line in a slightly different place than you do based on what I believe is moral and supportive of civil society. This is no different than other laws we have for that purpose. Another fact is that you have never lived during a time when Americans honored the marriage as a solemn commitment for life and believed the unborn were human beings they would never consider brutally eliminating. You have no experience of the benefit to children that those moral traditions created.
Women went off the reservation in the seventies and changed one law (abortion) without using the legislative process. The American people didn’t get to decide. Women assured us that abortion would be safe and rare. They were wrong…grievously so! I don’t think I should have to apologize for being against a law that was created without input from our various representatives and that hasn’t resulted in the promised outcome. See here, here, and also here.
“When will you learn that appealing to tradition is not sufficient to justify your position?”
When will you learn that I don’t have to justify my position. I state it freely just as you state yours. If anything, since you want to change the definition of a word and a long established tradition, it is up to you to make your case.
“Allowing gays to have their marriages federally recognized on the same level as straight marriages will be a dramatic change for the better. It will improve the lives of thousands of people…”
I’m sure it will make them feel better. I’m not so sure it will be a good idea in terms of the law and the future. It would set a precedent that others will use. Marriage could become whatever two adults say it is.
How will marriage be defined by the way? What is the basis on which the marriage law will be applied? How should it be defined in your opinion?
“I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you want to be treated, and helping those in need. To me those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for.”
I’ve always been very fond of Ellen DeGeneres and I agree with all of those values; they reflect my own.
They do not, however, address issues of the law. Can a man marry his son, for instance, to get a tax break? Oh I know…”people wouldn’t do that”…yep, just like abortion would be “safe and rare”!
“…then whatever the basic values and tenets of our society are *should* be replaced.”
Great idea! Let’s use abortion as our guide. Why not petition the court so that parents decide up until the age of three, six, ten, eighteen whether their little blob is worth keeping? If it’s not “murder” in the womb why should it be murder later on before the tissue mass is fully equipped to rely on itself? How about when our parents get old and need too much of our time and money to care for them…shouldn’t we be able to just snuff out that light? I mean what’s the difference? They aren’t really “viable” since they aren’t able to care for themselves anymore, right? What else could we change just because it would make life easier and feel better? Progressives don’t have moral grounding they just emote!
Our traditions were established because they made moral and civic sense. Not everyone fits into the general traditions and not everyone is willing to practice the norm but overall these laws and traditions served the public well. Do what you want doesn’t have the same affect.
“Please do not pretend that you believe marriage only includes “couples coming together to pro-create.”
Please don’t pretend marriage was established for “love” or “benefits”. We changed our marriage laws based on “lack of love and compatibility” and we see how that has turned out for kids and our society!
The reasoning has nothing to do with bigotry or hate!
Libby: “…and so we wind up with wolves instead of shepherds.”
Agree…some of the sheep are pretty scarey too.
Tina: “You are so predictable!
If you like images you should take a gander at the one of the burned to the ground Korean grocery store that was destroyed during the Los Angeles race riots. It’s also a very disturbing picture from the past. But it has little to do with you taking responsibility for wanting change the definition and legal basis for marriage.”
It also has nothing to do with this conversation, at all, so I have no idea why you brought it up.
Your argument is also self-defeating. People who wanted to legalize interracial marriage were also, in the eyes of many, viewed as “wanting to change the definition and legal basis for marriage.” So were those who fought for laws against marital rape. So were those who fought for women’s suffrage. *And they were right to do so.* “Wanting to change the definition and legal basis for marriage” isn’t necessarily a bad thing; if the definition and legal basis for marriage had never changed, you would be considered the legal property of your husband, who would be legally allowed to rape you, and you would not be allowed to work outside the home. If we go back further, your husband would have been allowed to continue marrying as many women as he wanted to. You may not want to change marriage laws now, because they are arranged in such a way as to be perfectly comfortable to you. But you should at least acknowledge that you have benefitted from people before you who wanted to change the definition and legal basis of marriage. And after acknowledging that, you should at least consider the possibility that our marriage laws are currently arranged in a way that might be discriminatory toward others. Just because it’s comfortable to you does not mean it is right; your privilege makes this hard for you to see.
Your fear of “change” is not a sufficient argument. You actually have to demonstrate that this change would be a bad one. The anti-gays have utterly failed at doing this, both in the courts and the court of public opinion, which is why more and more states are legalizing marriage through the legislative process and the ballot.
“I’m not asking the government to change the definition of marriage…you are…be responsible!”
Again, we’ve already established this. That’s not an argument against it.
“I am also not asking the government to change abortion law; I am asking the American people to re-establish a moral core with respect to marriage and the unborn…laws will follow.”
Are you telling me you don’t support anti-abortion laws being put in place until the culture changes? I highly doubt you’re being honest here.
“I think I told you in a recent article that we could simplify the tax law and a lot of the problems for the LGBT community would go away. Get the government out of marriage and people can do as they please.”
Yes, and in the course of that conversation I showed you how impractical and disingenuous that argument was. Marriage isn’t just about taxes–there are 1138 federal benefits of marriage that cannot be independently contracted through any other insitution. In order to “get the government out of marriage,” straight married couples would have to give up all 1138 federal benefits, which is something they will never do. It’s not even something YOU would do; if you were in any way serious about this “get the government out of marriage” nonsense, YOU WOULDN’T HAVE GOTTEN A GOVERNMENT-APPROVED MARRIAGE. You could have easily married in the eyes of your church without ever getting a civil marriage contract. But instead, you and your husband decided to go for the government benefits. You don’t get to chastize gays for wanting the same. The “get the government out of marriage” argument is an excuse. It’s a shallow nod toward equality (“let’s just eliminate government marriage benefits for everyone! yay!”) that has no chance of ever actually get us to anything approaching equality.
“FYI: Marriage and race are not the same; a black person has no other choice than to be black (“…and die,” Morgan Freeman). The comparison of marriage to the cause of civil rights for blacks is very offensive.”
Yes, because it’s not like blacks ever fought against discriminatory marriage laws!
Do you ever stop and think before you type? I mean, do you ever take a second and try to find any holes in your arguments, so that you catch them before others do? Because that’s something I do all the time here; I read over my comments at least twice to make sure I’ve made a rational argument without any glaring gaps that damage my argument.
You write, “a black person has no other choice than to be black.” OK, let’s skip over the part where this implies that gay people choose to be gay, because that’s not even an argument worth engaging at this point. The bigger problem with this statement is that you’re totally ignoring what the issue of interracial marriage was about. Sure, blacks have no choice but to be black; but they certainly have a choice on whether the person they marry is black or white, correct?
Similarly, a man (barring major surgery) has no choice but to be a man. But that man has a choice of whether to marry a man or a woman, right?
Well there you go! Neither interracial marriage nor gay marriage should be allowed, because they are both matters of choice. People can’t control their race or gender (and maybe not even their sexual orientation), but they CAN control their actions–so marriage is not a right, and we as a society can stop people from marrying based on race and gender (and sexual orientation).
Tina, the arguments you’re using against gay marriage here are IDENTICAL, in their logical construction, to the arguments against interracial marriage. Opponents of interracial marriage did not see themselves as bigoted; in fact, they didn’t even see it as discrimination. From their arguments:
“Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race.”
Black people, according to the state of Virginia, were not being denied the right to marry. They could marry, as long as they married someone of the same race. Where does that sound familiar?
Opponents of interracial marriage truly believed that they were doing what was best for society. They believed that race-mixing was bad for children, bad for marriage and bad for the country. They did not see themselves as bigots. And certainly, many of them were otherwise good, decent people in most parts of their lives. But they still supported bigoted policy.
Ultimately, though, we as a country realized that what truly makes us a better society are the values of freedom and tolerance. Whatever consequences of interracial marriage opponents imagined would occur, the right to marry was too important to leave to mob rule, which is why the court had to step in and declare anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional.
I am sorry if the comparison between interracial marriage opponents and yourself offends you, but it’s apt. And your own arguments prove it to be apt, in their resemblance to arguments offered by interracial marriage opponents.
“The fact is, I draw the line in a slightly different place than you do based on what I believe is moral and supportive of civil society. This is no different than other laws we have for that purpose.”
It is different, because marriage is such an extremely personal decision. Barring serious, provable harm, such as the kind cause by incest or rape, we should not interfere with people’s personal marital choices.
“Another fact is that you have never lived during a time when Americans honored the marriage as a solemn commitment for life”
Do you believe gays are incapable of “honoring marriage as a solemn commitment for life?”
“Women went off the reservation in the seventies and changed one law (abortion) without using the legislative process. The American people didn’t get to decide.”
Yes, because the American people don’t get to decide on issues of fundamental rights. That’s in the Constitution.
“If anything, since you want to change the definition of a word and a long established tradition, it is up to you to make your case.”
No, that’s not how it works. Because the court has ruled marriage to be a civil right, it’s up to those trying to limit that right to make your case. You have to show why the harms of allowing same-sex couples to engage in this right are so great, that the right should be curtailed. You have not done this.
“I’m sure it will make them feel better.”
How unbecomingly glib. Yes, it usually does make people feel better when they are able to visit their dying spouses in the hospital. Do some research on the consequences to gay couples from being unable to have their marriages federally recognized before you make such heartless statements.
“I’m not so sure it will be a good idea in terms of the law and the future. It would set a precedent that others will use. Marriage could become whatever two adults say it is.
How will marriage be defined by the way? What is the basis on which the marriage law will be applied? How should it be defined in your opinion?”
I believe marriage should be defined as making two unrelated adults each other’s closest kin. This is something marriage seems to always do, in every society. It doesn’t always lead to procreation, making the man-woman criteria arbitrary.
“They do not, however, address issues of the law. Can a man marry his son, for instance, to get a tax break?”
Now this is an offensive comparison! Do you really believe a gay couple is morally similar to an incestuous one? We have documented the harms of incest. There is a compelling reason to ban incestuous marriages. There is no similar compelling reason to ban same-sex marriages.
Besides, incestuous marriage defeats the main purpose of marriage that exists across cultures, which is the create new family relationships. A father and son are already close family.
“Great idea! Let’s use abortion as our guide. Why not petition the court so that parents decide up until the age of three, six, ten, eighteen whether their little blob is worth keeping? If it’s not “murder” in the womb why should it be murder later on before the tissue mass is fully equipped to rely on itself? How about when our parents get old and need too much of our time and money to care for them…shouldn’t we be able to just snuff out that light? I mean what’s the difference?”
Tina, I’ve explained the difference to you dozens of times; why do you pretend otherwise? It seems pointless to have these debates if you’re going to ignore the arguments I’ve already made and ask me to make them again.
People have the right to life. They don’t have the right to use other people’s bodies to live. (Google “violinist analogy.”) The pro-choice argument has always been about the right of a woman to do what she wants with her own body; once the baby is outside of her body, how can that right be invoked in order to kill it? That makes no sense.
It’s fine to poke holes in your opponents’ arguments and use their logic against them, but that’s not even what you’re doing here; you’re ignoring the logic of your opponents entirely, and showing that you don’t even understand the basics of the arguments with which you’re engaged.
“Progressives don’t have moral grounding they just emote!”
Tina, we are discussing moral issues that have been dealt with significantly, on both sides of the debate. Progressives, as well as traditionalists, have drawn on many moral and philosophical traditions and concepts in order to come to their conclusions and make their arguments. They’ve written papers in which they trace the logic of their arguments quite clearly. It would be helpful if, in discussing these issues, you showed an awareness of this. Saying that progressives have no “moral grounding” to support our positions is simply ignorant. It shows that you aren’t familiar with the arguments being made. Progressives believe that their positions are on sound moral basis. (Doesn’t everyone?) We’ve worked through these issues and tried to come to the best conclusions, just like you have. Just because someone may have *different* moral conclusions than you does not mean they have *no* morals. This is a common conflation I see in conservative complaints about progressives, and it shows a deep misunderstanding. If you want to change minds, you need to start from the premise that progressives do want to be moral people, and base their ideas on a kind of morality, even if you think it’s the wrong kind.
“Our traditions were established because they made moral and civic sense.”
There was a time when wives being the legal property of their husbands made moral and civic sense. That time is over, and we abandoned that tradition, thankfully.
Today, excluding gay couples from marriage does not make moral or civic sense.
“Please don’t pretend marriage was established for “love” or “benefits”.”
I never said or implied that.
“The reasoning has nothing to do with bigotry or hate!”
To bring this full circle, interracial marriage opponents thought the same thing. It is very hard to acknowledge bigotry within oneself, especially if you were raised in a society where that bigotry was simply “how things were.” It requires stepping outside of oneself and considering the world from a minority’s perspective.
Pie Guevara: “I wonder what these hypocrites and bigots will think of the approval of plural, interspecies, and pedophile marriage (aka Islamic marriage), and will Chris or a future Chris carry water for them?”
The word “consent” doesn’t really mean a whole lot to you, does it?
If conservatives are honestly worried that gay marriage will lead to any of the above, then I would think they would start trying to figure out how gay marriage is *different* from plural, interspecies, and pedophilic marriages, rather than trying to argue that they are somehow the same. After all, any objective look at shifting public opinion on this issues shows gay marriage to be an inevitability. Associating gay marriage with a host of far more unseemly marital arrangements made sense when stopping gay marriage seemed like a real possibility, but now, it seems pretty counter-productive.
But since I can’t resist countering this asinine argument YET AGAIN, let me demolish them one by one:
Polyamory: Too complicated. We’d actually have to change the structure of civil marriage in very significant ways to enact this. Gay marriage doesn’t require any actual restructuring, contrary to the claims of anti-gays. Also, the Constitution bars arbitrary discrimination based on gender; it doesn’t bar discrimination based on number of people in an institution. Given that sexual orientation is likely to become a protected class soon as well, polygamists will have a MUCH harder time demonstrating they have a right to marry multiple people than gays have had demonstrating they have the right to marry one. It’s not even a slipper slope; it’s an incredibly bumpy one.
Interspecies: Last time I checked, animals can’t sign a marriage contract. Also, you’re an idiot.*
Pedophiles: Consent matters. And it matters a lot to progressives. Minors can’t give meaningful consent or sign a marriage contract. Your argument is invalid.
*Yes, that was ad hominem; but so is comparing gays to pedophiles and people who practice bestiality, so we’re even.**
**Actually, given how ugly such an attack is, and given your long history of ad hominem attacks on me personally, we’re not even close to even.
Turns out interracial marriage was also compared to poly, incestuous, and adult-minor marriage by segregationists during Loving v. Virginia:
“It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state’s prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.”
–R. D. McIlwaine III, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1
“It also has nothing to do with this conversation, at all, so I have no idea why you brought it up.”
Of course you don’t. You would have to crawl out of the box and look in the mirror to have some “idea”. You have learned the craft so well I have to admit I’m a bit surprised you don’t recognize it comin back atcha.
“you should at least consider the possibility that our marriage laws are currently arranged in a way that might be discriminatory toward others…”
I have acknowledged that our laws discriminate but they are tax and inheritance laws. The marriage law is the same for everyone. Everyone can participate that wants to participate. Those who choose to live differently are free to do so. You may not like it but it is still the absolute truth. One man and one woman make a marriage. Other arrangements are no less valid in our society but they are not marriage. Civil union was suggested and embraced for more than a decade.
“Just because it’s comfortable to you does not mean it is right; your privilege makes this hard for you to see.”
Chris your attitude is condescending and arrogant. I have the capacity to understand your point of view and the feelings of those who are hell bent on changing the definition of an word so they can feel better and validate their relationship arrangement. But it’s a bit inconsiderate of this group to expect then entire world to change the definition and meaning of not just one word but all of the words associated with marriage just to make them happy. Mother and father…husband and wife are also forever altered if the marriage law is changed. They are already demanding that birth certificates and school records be changed to reflect non-gendered designations. I can no longer be mother to my child but merely parent. The concepts of father and mother will be as irrelevant as are the unborn that are now considered mere blobs of tissue decades after safe and rare.
“Your fear of “change” is not a sufficient argument.”
You misread me entirely. It is not fear that drives me and fear of change has not been the basis of my arguments.
“The anti-gays…”
What a politically stacked grouping of words that is! I am not generally “opposed” to gay people. I stand in defense of the word marriage and its definition as a union between one man and one woman.
“Are you telling me you don’t support anti-abortion laws being put in place until the culture changes?”
I’m saying that the proper course in America is that the people, through their representatives, establish law. Winning the argument in society is the only responsible way to change American law. Unfortunately your progressive brothers and sisters have never respected that and are willing to use the courts, as they did in Roe and as they have in California to overturn the will of the people.
“I highly doubt you’re being honest here.”
Chris conservatives are not like progressives. I like our system of government and I appreciate the concept of the will of the people. It is progressives that bully to get their way…as Gavin Newsom illustrated so well in his arrogant remark, “Gay marriage time has come whether you like it or not”. That is precisely how radical progressives think and that is how they do politics. they use any means necessary to get what they want no matter what it does to the country and no matter whether the people want it or not. His in your face attitude represents a lot of repressed anger and resentment…sticking it to those who defend marriage, particularly if they are Christian. This blatant bigotry suggests a man that is absolutely unwilling to compromise or seek solutions that would satisfy everyone.
“there are 1138 federal benefits of marriage that cannot be independently contracted through any other insitution.”
A. That’s just not true. People lived their lives before those regulations were put in place by our Congress and they could do so again. Laws and regulations can be altered or removed.
B. That is way too many regulations…get rid of them! Single men don’t get to take advantage of them why should anyone else!
“But instead, you and your husband decided to go for the government benefits.”
Wow. Well thanks Chris for showing all of us just how much our culture has changed and our PC progressive schools have brainwashed our children. I assure you my husband and I gave not one thought to benefits when we were looking at marriage. we considered what it would take to pay the rent and buy gas and groceries.
“The “get the government out of marriage” argument is an excuse. It’s a shallow nod toward equality…”
More progressive brainwashing…only when its sanctified by government (the progressive’s religion) is it valid…and equality is defined as that which only government imposes. Give them that power Chris and they can impose anything on you…and they will! A famous illustration: Some pigs are more equal than others.
“Yes, because it’s not like blacks ever fought against discriminatory marriage laws!”
One man and one woman…you bet they did and if you follow the link above you will find a lot of them still favor that definition of marriage. It is why prop 8 passed in California even as blacks in California voted for Obama by 70%!
“…but they certainly have a choice on whether the person they marry is black or white, correct?”
Correct…the issue surrounded the right to marry a person of a different race.
“Similarly, a man (barring major surgery) has no choice but to be a man. But that man has a choice of whether to marry a man or a woman, right?
Only in a world that turns the definition of marriage on its head! The point is that a black man or woman CANNOT change the color of his skin and his skin color does not change his biological makeup.
“the arguments you’re using against gay marriage here are IDENTICAL, in their logical construction, to the arguments against interracial marriage.”
I’m sure they are from your perspective. Because marriage is just a construct of convenience and an expression of feelings. It doesn’t have a definition that matters to anyone so why not just change how people think about it so gay people in relationships can get benefits. Easy…no problem. Chris you can’t understand my arguments because you have no concept of marriage as it has always been defined. You have no respect for those who value marriage as a particular construct. But it’s not just you and gay people. Our country trashed thew idea of marriage long before gay people started demanding it as a right. We trashed marriage first when we loosened the divorce laws and made promiscuity a “normal” condition of life. It may not seem to you that these things have made a big mess of our society but I see it differently.
“I am sorry if the comparison between interracial marriage opponents and yourself offends you…”
It also offends a lot of black people. Marriage is not a right. It is an obligation between a man and a woman. Gender difference is the very basis of the union and no other relationship, no matter how loving or committed, is equivalent. Race is irrelevant with respect to this union which is why our country rightly changed the law so that people of different races could intermarry.
“Do you believe gays are incapable of “honoring marriage as a solemn commitment for life?””
I believe gays are capable of solemn commitment in their relationships…they are not marriages, however, from my perspective.
“because the American people don’t get to decide on issues of fundamental rights.:
Abortion is not a “fundamental right” in the opinion of many legal scholars. In the opinion of many Americans it is an act that denies the uinborn child the fundamental right to life that is guaranteed in the Constitution. Many Americans also think that abortion is an excuse for a woman and an abortion doctor to play God. God is acknowledged in our founding documents as the giver of our basic rights, the right to life being most fundamental!
Roe imagined that abortion is included as a fundamental right under the “pursuit of happiness” portion. This is, in my opinion, ridiculous! An act that snuffs out life just so that happiness can be pursued by the mother is so averse to our humanity.
“Because the court has ruled marriage to be a civil right…”
I think the court is wrong. I think the court is progressively wrong. Progressives have no respect for our inalienable rights. This is why the attack continues on faith, traditional marriage, and the Constitution. As our President has said, the Constitution is an “impediment” to his goals. It is something he would like to “break free” of in order to do what he wants regarding political and economic justice. His government certainly reflects his bend the law to our will politics. Under his leadership government employees found nothing wrong with targeting religious organization or organizations with patriot or tea party in their titles for discrimination and oppression of rights. Likewise changing our laws through the courts so that the makeup and definition of marriage includes any consenting adults or changing our laws so that a woman can put her own happiness above the life of her unborn child is certainly part of the progressive desire to change our fundamental, God given rights to include anything. You apparently think our government is the giver of liberty and rights. I think our unalienable rights are the only rights we have that can be legally defended. They are God given and cannot be taken from us. All of the so-called rights we have been imagining over the last seventy or so years are just issues of obligation, desire, need, want, honor, responsibility, or tradition that the left wants to put under (progressive) government control. Inn this construct equality of outcomes is the order of the day.
“…marriage should be defined as making two unrelated adults each other’s closest kin…”
So what distinguishes that relationship from mine with my mother or son?
“It doesn’t always lead to procreation, making the man-woman criteria arbitrary.”
Ridiculous. The man-woman “criteria” is fundamental. The fact that some marriages do not or will not result in children is irrelevant. Most do and children are the basis for creating the union. Children have both a mother and a father and they deserve to be honored by giving them the benefit of having a family unit made up of their mother and their father whenever possible. I think that should be the standard we aspire to achieve. This goes to the basic family unit as being fundamental to a strong society. Not all people wish to live this way, and while I wouldn’t want government to impose the standard, I think it is the best possible situation for children and for a strong society and as such traditional marriage should be encouraged by our laws.
I asked you what the basis is for your definition of marriage. “closest kin” is more of a description…and not a very good one since all of blood family is kin and “closest” is arbitrary.
“Do you really believe a gay couple is morally similar to an incestuous one?”
No, sorry to disappoint, and don’t change the subject! I asked you for a definition so that we can make sense of the consequence of the law. If any consenting adults can marry, or if marriage is anything we say it is, then it would be perfectly within the legal rights of a man and his son to “marry” so his son can benefit under inheritance law. A spouse can inherit without tax penalty but a son cannot!
“Tina, I’ve explained the difference to you dozens of times…”
Well gee Chris, as long as you’re satisfied that’s the end of it, huh?
“People have the right to life. They don’t have the right to use other people’s bodies to live.”
Wrongo, Chris, at the most basic biological level. No human being has ever come into life by other means and should science ever conceive of a method (forgive the pun) it would be an aberration of questionable morality. Tell me, were you somehow incubated outside of your mothers body? Were you created in a test tube? Did you just gradually come about? Good grief the lengths your side will go to! How you twist the truth to suit your fanciful ideas! Example: “The pro-choice argument has always been about the right of a woman to do what she wants with her own body”
“If you want to change minds, you need to start from the premise that progressives do want to be moral people, and base their ideas on a kind of morality, even if you think it’s the wrong kind.”
I could say the same to you. Your side has shown very little respect to the morals and values expressed by people who are pro-life (derided as anti-woman), Christian (derided as believers in a man in the sky), pro traditional marriage (derided as hateful and anti-gay). The word traditional is also held with contempt. In don’t think you’re in a position to preach to me about changing minds by showing respect for the moral beliefs of others.
“Today, excluding gay couples from marriage does not make moral or civic sense.”
To you. However you have not thus far made the case. What is the new legal definition going to be? What is the basis for marriage in your shiny new tradition? “Closest kin” won’t do in court, Chris. I need to know how you will defend marriage to those who will argue in future, “…the arguments you’re using against XXX marriage here are IDENTICAL, in their logical construction, to the arguments against gay marriage back at the beginning of the century.” It will be an issue unless you can think of a strong basis for your new definition. I said progressives emote because you don’t think about the consequences. You think only in terms of what you want today. It’s a selfish and, frankly, adolescent way of thinking.
“I never said or implied that.”
I’m sorry Chris but you have. You have argued that gay people should be able to marry the person they love. You have argued that they should marry so that they can take advantage of certain benefits, 1138 federal regulations, remember?
“It is very hard to acknowledge bigotry within oneself, especially if you were raised in a society where that bigotry was simply “how things were.” It requires stepping outside of oneself and considering the world from a minority’s perspective.”
It takes maturity and courage to step outside the progressive cause de jour box. There is a chance you could gain some understanding about “how things were” so you wouldn’t have to resort to the bigotry label. Ultimately you cannot defend trashing the traditional definition for marriage, which is what you want to do whether you acknowledge it or not, because you cannot create a suitable legal basis for redefinition. I mean really…closest kin? Treating me like a fresh faced child that you need to instruct is not very convincing either Chris. It only points out your own prejudices and disrespect for the morality and ideals of others.
Our readers might be interested in considering “The Constitutionality of traditional marriage”:
Also the opinions expressed by gay persons in France in this article: Lessons from France on “Defending Marriage”
“Minors can’t give meaningful consent or sign a marriage contract.”
But they can buy potentially dangerous abortion drugs over the counter without consent of their parents who are legally responsible for their welfare.
You guys are all over the map. As I said before, you emote. You base every position on an emotional need or want.
Tina, I’ll guarantee you “Organizing for America” was approved in less then the three weeks it took the IRS to approve Obama’s brother’s 501(c)4.
Turns out Malik Obama’s application filed in 2011 was approved in less than a month AND was retroactive to Dec. 2008.
IRS official Lerner speedily approved exemption for Obama brother’s ‘charity’:
“According to the organization’s filings, Lerner approved the foundation’s tax status within a month of filing, an unprecedented timeline that stands in stark contrast to conservative organizations that have been waiting for more than three years, in some cases, for approval.
Lerner also appears to have broken with the norms of tax-exemption approval by granting retroactive tax-exempt status to Malik Obama’s organization.
The National Legal and Policy Center filed an official complaint with the IRS in May 2011 asking why the foundation was being allowed to solicit tax-deductible contributions when it had not even applied for an IRS determination. In a New York Post article dated May 8, 2011, an officer of the foundation admitted, “We haven’t been able to find someone with the expertise” to apply for tax-exempt status.
Nevertheless, a month later, the Barack H. Obama Foundation had flown through the grueling application process. Lerner granted the organization a 501(c) determination and even gave it a retroactive tax exemption dating back to December 2008.
The group’s available paperwork suggests an extremely hurried application and approval process. For example, the group’s 990 filings for 2008 and 2009 were submitted to the IRS on May 30, 2011, and its 2010 filing was submitted on May 23, 2011.
Lerner signed the group’s approval [pdf] on June 26, 2011.
It is illegal to operate for longer than 27 months without an IRS determination and solicit tax-deductible contributions.”
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-official-lerner-approved-exemption-for-obama-brothers-charity/#ixzz2TeZjWyBW
Would like to know how the over $100k he collected was used.
Also, isn’t he and Obama’s aunt here illigally on expired visas? Their has to be a law that prevents someone here illigally from gaining tax exempt status, if not there should be.
Tina, I don’t have time to respond to everything right now, but I think the portion of the SCOTUS blog article you quoted gets to the heart of the issue:
“The Equal Protection Clause, after all, demands that government afford equal treatment to those who are similarly situated. And the Due Process Clause recognizes fundamental rights that are deeply rooted in our history and traditions. Neither clause is offended by a defense of traditional marriage.
California Supreme Court Justice Carol Corrigan, herself reportedly a member of the gay and lesbian community, perhaps best described the equal protection issue in her dissenting opinion in In re Marriage Cases: “”The concept of the equal protection of the laws compels recognition of the proposition that persons similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purpose of the law receive like treatment.’ “The first prerequisite to a meritorious claim under the equal protection clause is a showing that the state has adopted a classification that affects two or more similarly situated groups in an unequal manner.’ This initial inquiry is not whether persons are similarly situated for all purposes, but “whether they are similarly situated for purposes of the law challenged.’” It is no denigration of one class or the other to acknowledge the biological truth that same-sex and opposite-sex couples are not similarly situated with respect to at least one of the purposes of marriage, namely, procreation.”
This assertion is simply not true for all opposite-sex couples. There are many opposite-sex couples who, in regards to procreation, are “similarly situated” to same-sex couples. If Barbara has a hysterectomy, she is no more likely to produce a child with Bob than she is with Sally.
We could also use this argument to say that elderly couples are not “similarly situated” to couples where the woman is under 80, because under no circumstances will such a union produce children. Therefore, since marriage is only for procreating couples, we could choose to not recognize marriages including women over 80.
This also goes for people who are infertile, and even people who are willingly child-free; let’s say we make a law saying if, after 5 years, a couple has not produced a child, society will anull that marriage. After all, this couple is not fulfilling the purpose of marriage, anymore than a gay couple would.
But wait, that’s not fair. Infertile couples (or couples that choose not to have biological children) can still adopt and raise children. That’s a purpose of marriage, right? To raise children in a stable environment, even if they aren’t biological children? Well, yes. But…gay couples can do that too. A straight couple who has adopted is entirely similarly situated to a gay couple who has adopted.
Now, you may counter that you believe gay couples can’t parent in the same way that straight couples can, and that a child being raised by a mother and father is the ideal. And you may even be right about that. But we’ve never based marriage law on whether or not certain types of couples will be ideal parents. Certainly, two 80 year olds are not ideal parents, yet we let them marry. Divorced persons with children can marry, even though the social science research is pretty clear that children don’t do as well in step-parent homes. Courts have even stated that prisoners on death row have a right to marry–that certainly doesn’t bode well for the kids!
The fact is, with respect to our marriage laws, neither child-rearing ability nor procreative ability are taken into account when it comes to marriage between any opposite-sex couple. Once you can see that, the only argument you’re left with is, “But they are still an opposite-sex couple!” But that’s completely circular. Our system of government bars arbitrary gender discrimination–you have to show that there’s something crucial about marriage that only opposite-sex couples can do that same-sex couples can’t do. Procreation won’t cut it; there are too many opposite-sex couples who cannot procreate who we still allow to marry.
If we were actually serious about procreation being a requirement for marriage, we wouldn’t delineate between straight and gay couples, we would delineare between couples who can and cannot (or will not) procreate. That means gay couples would only be one type of couple that couldn’t marry; that category would also include the elderly, infertile, and willfully child-free. But since gay couples have been singled out among all of these, it’s very hard to argue that this is anything other than arbitrary discrimination. Gays are a minority group, one which has been historically marginalized and persecuted throughout history; it’s been easy to deny marriage to them in the past without causing much of a fuss. Try to deny marriage to infertile straight couples based on the exact same standards you’re applying to gays, and you would never get away with it.
Marriage clearly isn’t all about procreation. Certainly that’s ONE purpose of marriage, but it’s not the most important one, either in law or in common social practice (have you ever heard a bride or groom promise to have children with one another in their marriage vows?) There are many reasons the government tries to promote marriage–to promote stable unions for child-rearing (which both gay and straight couples can do), to provide economic support for spouses, making them less likely to need public assistance (which both gay and straight couples can do), to promote sexual monogamy and fidelity (which both gay and straight couples can do)…there are a ton of benefits to society that come from marriage, even marriages where a couple cannot produce biological children. And when it comes to these societal benefits, gay and straight couples clearly are similarly situated.
I think that trying to reduce marriage to one and only one purpose–one which not all married couples can fulfill–denigrates marriage more than anything the gay rights movement has done. It reduces marriage to a simple biological imperative. And it denies all of the other wonderful aspects of marriage, and all the other reasons society has to promote and respect it.
Tina: “But they can buy potentially dangerous abortion drugs over the counter without consent of their parents who are legally responsible for their welfare.”
That’s simply not true. Plan B is not “an abortion drug.” You are severely misinformed. The pill prevents fertilization and pregnancy. It does not disrupt an existing pregnancy.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/22/172595689/morning-after-pills-dont-cause-abortion-studies-say
“You guys are all over the map. As I said before, you emote. You base every position on an emotional need or want.”
There have been many logical, rational arguments put forward by healthcare professionals explaining why this pill should be available to young women without parental consent. I suggest you read them before you make such pre-judgments.
Peggy I think it’s pretty obvious that this administration has a very large abuse of power problem. We will all have to wait to see just how extensive it is and how many people are involved. I agree with Rand Paul, somebody (or several somebodies) should go to jail over these abuses.
Chris: “This assertion is simply not true for all opposite-sex couples. There are many opposite-sex couples who, in regards to procreation, are “similarly situated” to same-sex couples. If Barbara has a hysterectomy, she is no more likely to produce a child with Bob than she is with Sally.”
You describe an anomaly rather than a similar situation and pretend its the norm.
“elderly couples are not “similarly situated” to couples where the woman is under 80, because under no circumstances will such a union produce children.”
Irrelevant. They fall into the one man one woman category whether or not they are capable of producing children. My grandfather was 78 when he produced his last child.
“…let’s say we make a law saying if, after 5 years, a couple has not produced a child, society will anull that marriage. After all, this couple is not fulfilling the purpose of marriage, anymore than a gay couple would.”
Yes, let’s not have a simple standard that is generally good for society overall.
Instead, let’s create a big government bureaucracy with a lot of complex regulations and a watchdog group (IRS anyone?) to oversee it!
You still think the standard is placed to cover every situation. It is not! No government can make laws that fit every single situation, not wiothout becoming ridiculous (A lot like ours is now becoming!)
“But wait, that’s not fair. Infertile couples (or couples that choose not to have biological children) can still adopt and raise children. That’s a purpose of marriage, right?”
(This is why we do not base laws on what is fair.)
No, that is not “a purpose of marriage”. It is a very nice alternative gesture when the purpose of marriage, for whatever reason, cannot be fulfilled. There are many reasons for children to lose, or be deprived of, their original parents. Our society has created ways to best assist these children in having good homes but this is a separate issue.
“…neither child-rearing ability nor procreative ability are taken into account when it comes to marriage between any opposite-sex couple.”
Why because you say so? States, where these laws are most often written, often require blood testing. Some have dropped it and in my opinion that will prove to be troublesome as more and more children have no idea who their parent or parents are and as STD’s are a common looming problem.
Couples who decide to marry usually do consider having a family and certainly should be prepared in case they conceive (and are willing do right by the unborn child). They should also discuss their parenting styles and preferences and often do. So yes, Chris, in the real world family, children, pro-creation is very much a part of marriage consideration. There really is no need for marriage without the consideration of children. If women are considered equal (feminism) then considerations of provision don’t enter into the picture. Stability could be a consideration or loyalty but we know those are a matter of personal integrity rather than law now that the marriage laws are so lax.
“…you have to show that there’s something crucial about marriage that only opposite-sex couples can do that same-sex couples can’t do.”
Procreation is a pretty compelling argument whether you like it or not. Procreation is unique to one man one woman unity. Promiscuity can muddy the waters but DNA testing, in most cases, will clear it right up again.
We are talking about a standard that applies generally not what is fair and not what feels good.
“If we were actually serious about procreation being a requirement for marriage…”
It is not a requirement of marriage.. It is the core reason to require marriage between one man and one woman! Get it? Married people are not required to have children. That would be absurd! Marriage was created in order to require commitment between a man and woman to provide a stable environment for children they might produce through procreation. (Religious people consider it inn addition to be a sacred union)
“(have you ever heard a bride or groom promise to have children with one another in their marriage vows?)”
I have not heard references to future children in wedding vows. Couples do often seek counseling before their wedding day that does include questions about children or that might include children:
“I think that trying to reduce marriage to one and only one purpose–one which not all married couples can fulfill–denigrates marriage more than anything the gay rights movement has done.”
I don’t think the gay rights movement has denigrated marriage. I think they need to pick another designation because their commitment is not the same and the one difference is a major difference in terms of children.
“It reduces marriage to a simple biological imperative.”
No it does not
“And it denies all of the other wonderful aspects of marriage”
No, it does not.
You think this way because you hold it’s purpose backwards. You have yet to respect the idea that children deserve better than we have given them. they deserve to be raised by their original biological parents whenever possible. the government cannot grant that or guarantee that but it should be promoting it.
The societal mess we are experiencing is happening, in part, because we have chosen to give marriage and strong intact families short shrift in favor ofs individual desires, selfish interests, and an anything goes mentality. Rather than living responsibly as single people we drop children (and abort them) like they were nothing, often leaving them to basically fend for themselves.
Chris I respect the fact that you have a different perspective than I have and I also acknowledge that you are the future while I am the past. I offer my opinion, for what it is worth, as a bit of wisdom for consideration. I have seen what dramatic change from tradition has wrought in our society and I ncan assure you that many things that were considered harmless have proven to have been incredibly harmful for children especially.
Chris: “That’s simply not true. Plan B is not “an abortion drug.” You are severely misinformed. The pill prevents fertilization and pregnancy. It does not disrupt an existing pregnancy.”
Not everyone agrees that it is safe and some doctors have serious warnings about pregnancy:
Drugs.com
Fox News:
Dr. Pinna:
Both the President and Kathleen Sebelius were against this drug being available over the counter to minors without prescription originally:
aul.org
Is there any doubt that this judge is radically progressive and politically motivated? Especially when it also found the following:
Jedediah Bila points out the other medical warnings associated with the drug and asks the question, “Does this sound like a drug you’d want your 15-year-old to be able to buy off the shelf repeatedly without a prescription? How many 15-year-olds you know would properly assess preconditions that may make them poor candidates for the drug, as well as responsibly monitor and tend to side effects? How many would read the full prescribing information?
Few adults read the full prescribing information for drugs purchased over the counter; the answer is very few, if any, teens would read and understand the label’s warnings!
Parental guidance is advised! Parental responsibility for minor children is the law!
Our government and the courts have chosen to place themselves, once again, between parents and their children thus undermining their authority.
“There have been many logical, rational arguments put forward by healthcare professionals explaining why this pill should be available to young women without parental consent. I suggest you read them before you make such pre-judgments.”
I suggest you read the dissenting opinions before you side against parents and the moral and lawful responsibilities they have to their children.
Tina, Abuse of power exhibited by this administration has to be unprecedented in scope and depth. Here are the ones I could think of. Go ahead and add those I forgot.
1.) Gulf oil spill: Contempt of court for refusing to comply with judge’s order to lift drilling moratorium.
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-administration-found-contempt-of-court-over-drilling-moratorium
2.) Fast and Furious: Contempt of Congress for refusing to provide requested documents.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/20/fast-and-furious-holder-day-reckoning-has-finally-arrived/
3.) Extortion 17 Cover-up: Twenty-two SEALs Team Six members killed three months after Joe Biden identified the team for killing Bin Laden.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/10/parents-navy-seal-aaron-vaughn-blast-biden-2011-helicopter-crash-killed-their-son
http://specialoperationsspeaks.com/articles/video-seal-team-6-family-press-conference-5-9-2013-extortion-17
4.) Benghazi Cover-up: Has refused to provide unclassified and classified requested documents to Congress for over 8 months. Politically driven before, during and after the attack to get Obama reelected.
5.) IRS act of tyranny against a select group/s; conservatives, religious and disabled veterans.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/disabled-veterans-have-checks-stolen-by-irs/
6.) AP “slap-down” for not letting the WH be out front of the story.
“According to The Post’s timeline of the frantic back and forth between the CIA, the White House, and the AP, the AP had their big scoop about a thwarted terror attack ready to go on May 2 of last year. However, the organization sat on the story for five days, at the request of the CIA. The reporters and editors who were working on the story were told that there were serious “national security concerns” at stake. That happens a lot, particularly when the story is about an ongoing operation.
However, on Monday, May 7, those same CIA officials told the AP that those concerns were longer an issue. Presumably, that meant the operation had been completed, the agents involved were safe, and no one was in danger. Yet, the CIA still wanted to them to hold off for one more day, because the government was planning its own announcement, and offered the AP a one-hour long exclusive on the scoop. Then the White House shortened that exclusivity window to five minutes. The AP understandably balked, since the grounds for not publishing had switched from national security concerns to public relations timing, and ran their that afternoon.”
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/just-how-dangerous-was-leak-ap/65311/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/some-question-whether-ap-leak-on-al-qaeda-plot-put-us-at-risk/2013/05/15/47003ed4-bd77-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_story.html