Posted by Tina
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. -George Washington
Does it seem like the left has come unhinged of late? It’s either that or we are witnessing the truly low quality of the Democrat campaign plans for the year….targeting groups and possible candidates to destroy, changing or ignoring laws and procedures…undermining state efforts to tighten voting standards…consider:
The media has gone absolutely Bug Louis over “Bridgegate” giving that story much more (rabid) coverage than any of Obama’s many scandals.
In less than 24 hours, the big three networks have devoted 17 times more coverage to a traffic scandal involving Chris Christie than they’ve allowed in the last six months to Barack Obama’s Internal Revenue Service controversy. Since the story broke on Wednesday that aides to the New Jersey governor punished a local mayor’s lack of endorsement with a massive traffic jam, ABC, CBS and NBC have responded with 34 minutes and 28 seconds of coverage. Since July 1, these same networks managed a scant two minutes and eight seconds for the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups.
In contrast, journalists such as Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos pounced on the developing Christie story. The GMA host opened the program on Thursday by announcing, “Chris Christie in crisis. Calls at this hour for the feds to step in, investigate the explosive e-mails.”
Then yesterday came news that the actress Maria Conchita Alonso was fired from the production she was working on for making a political ad with a California Tea Party candidate for governor. Alonso said she had received criticism for supporting a Republican candidate: “They were saying they were going to burn down the theater, they were going to boycott the show.”
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. -John F. Kennedy
The Democrat governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, also lost it last Friday. He said conservatives should “leave New York!”:
Cuomo said Friday that members of the GOP with “extreme” views are creating an identity crisis for their party and represent a bigger worry than Democrats such as himself.
“Their problem isn’t me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves,” the governor said on Albany’s The Capitol Pressroom radio show.
“Who are they? Right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay — if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”
Really? Where’s the love, Gov…what happened to that big progressive idea…DIVERSITY? It is the rallying cry of the Democrat Party…the party of tolerance and inclusion, right? Not! And the next example proves it.
One of the lowest of the lows was a drive by slamming of Republican Tim Scott.
Scott issued a very dignified response following disgusting remarks made by the NAACP President, Rev. William Barber II, who called Scott, “A ventriloquist’s dummy for the tea party.”
Scott’s response:
“To reflect seriously on the comments a person, a pastor, that is filled with baseless and meaningless rhetoric would be to do a disservice to the very people who have sacrificed so much and paved a way,” Scott told The Daily Caller in an emailed statement. “Instead, I will honor the memory of Dr. King by being proactive in holding the door for others and serving my fellow man. And Rev. Barber will remind me and others of what not to do.”
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -Louis D. Brandeis
In the dirty tricks department we learned at the end of December that the IRS has change the rules for nonprofit’s under certain conditions to eliminate Tea Party group participation in the next election. National Review has details in a fairly long article. In a nutshell it sound like the rules are written to be applied as the IRS sees fit:
Despite the variety of descriptions of exempt organizations listed in section 501, none provides a direct fit for political activists. Logically, as a matter of textual analysis, the statute’s term “social welfare” — described in IRS regulations as “promoting the common good and general welfare of the community” — should include political activism, given that democratic politics is supposed to be about the common good and general welfare.
The key conclusion is that, under the statute, there is no basis for the IRS to exclude political activity from “social welfare,” and there is no need for it to do so to protect the public revenues.
However, the IRS took a different direction: It arrogated to itself the duty of deciding which groups deserve the benefit of tax-exempt status, and uses the Internal Revenue Code to micromanage the nonprofit sector.
Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. -Martin Luther King Jr
Media Matters or Moveon.org will be at the top of their list, I’m sure.
I could easily find other examples of devious political game playing to share with you; the left is gearing up for the coming elections. But at this point why bother…by now we all know how Democrats play the game and we will be barraged with their games in coming months.
Instead let me leave you with words of wisdom to consider from Doug Bandow at The American Spectator:
America is a class-based society. But based on politics, not economics. An elite political class runs the state to their benefit. The rest of us pay the bill.
The differences between the assumptions and values of people within and without Washington’s 68 square miles of fantasy long have been on ostentatious public display. For example, for years Congress routinely exempted itself from rules imposed on everyone else. The Republican-controlled Congress in 1994 theoretically stopped that.
However, legislative privilege never really ended. The Democrats’ health care “reform” became the latest example of elite privilege. Never mind the endless rules exemptions and multiple deadline postponements. Most dramatic was the tender treatment of those in the capital who approved the measure despite being opposed by those outside the capital.
I would only add that besides paying the bill we are also periodically used, like old worn work boots, and then discarded to the back of the closet when the election is done.
The politics of personal destruction is detestable and makes Americans look like a bunch of dopey adolescents. Personal problem special rights politics divide us and cause unnecessary stress and animosity, wearing us down to a frazzle. The Games played by the elites in DC are costing us a small fortune and that makes the targeting and smearing sited above all the more disturbing.
Have you ever wondered how well we citizens would get along if the entire machinery in DC just abruptly came to an end? If the federal government suddenly shriveled to bear bones…wouldn’t it be lovely? Gone would be the nasty games, the corruption, the intrusion into our lives, the endless redistribution of our hard earned money, and the constantly growing oppressive federal debt. Maybe we could get back to being Americans again. Maybe America could be a place Oce again where our close friends and family might know our personal business and opinions but basically the rest of the community wouldn’t have a clue…we could all just mind our own business…enjoy the music…and live free
We haven’t been able to live like that since the sixties generation came to town…the radical leftist activists who are not content to live in freedom with all of the opportunity they would ever need or could ever want to make a good life for themselves, to participate, to make a difference, to pay it forward, to fix problems in their communities. Nope…they gotta get into everyone’s kitchen and control and manage and make us pay and pay and pay and for what? Through the big machine of their activism they have created monster government…a huge money sink that does a lousy job of managing and running things. The left won’t stop unless freedom stirs in the hearts of all of us. In the light of life as our founders imagine we can overwhelm and overcome their activism with the power of a shared love of freedom. Learn to love it and please, please …pass it on!
Freedom has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men and so it must be daily earned and refreshed – else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die. -Dwight D. Eisenhower
The politics of personal destruction, elevated to nearly an art form by the Clintons, are alive and well in today’s left-leaning media and Taxocrat party.
Just one question for those lefties: Where was all your concern on IRS targeting, NSA snooping, F&F and Benghazigate?
You don’t say where you got this, but would you please read it?
“In less than 24 hours, the big three networks have devoted 17 times more coverage to a traffic scandal involving Chris Christie than they’ve allowed in the last six months to Barack Obama’s Internal Revenue Service controversy.”
I mean, read it! “24 hours … 17 times … six months ….” Yes, I can see where that might be true … what of it? A “24 hours” occurs 180 times in six months. It seems to me you haven’t got anything noteworthy to grouse about til you hit the six-day mark, but I’d say that the extreme giddiness persisted for about three days.
“Since the story broke on Wednesday …. The GMA host opened the program on Thursday by announcing, ‘Chris Christie in crisis.'”
Yes … that too sounds just about right. You are being unreasonable in your persecution fantasies. I haven’t heard much of anything about it this week … except … well, there has been another mayor come forward with another tale of woe.
Giggle.
Media saturation … no. But we will be keeping up with further developments. And you will just have to deal with that. Nobody fried your candidate … he fried himself.
Stewart Varney alerted me to a story about Tim Geitner, the Justice Department and Standard and Poors this morning. Political has the story:
Justice has denied the allegaions.
This administration has created an atmosphere of intimidation and indiscriminate targeting of perceived “enemies”. Government intimidation of opposition and detractors is at an all time high. This has to be the most arrogant and corrupt administration we have ever seen.
It is the Democrat Party that is extreme and radical. it is the Democrat Party that is attempting to control every aspect of our lives. It is the Democrat Party that has and is destroying our economy and the educational system and poisoning the culture.
That’s why the control freaks target the Tea Party and distort the meaning of their calls for limited government and common decency.
“Then yesterday came news that the actress Maria Conchita Alonso was fired from the production she was working on ….”
Oh, my Lord …
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/21/politics/tim-donnelly-campaign-ad/
And you’re just lucky I’m having restraint and not pasting the whole thing. Well, maybe just this one bit:
“In the video, Alonso cradles a small, sweater-clad lapdog she calls Tequila as she translates, and oftentimes reinterprets, Donnelly’s views on a wide range of issues.
“At one point, Alonso makes a somewhat crude allusion to Donnelly’s boldness.
“In the ad, Donnelly says, “I want a gun in every Californians gun safe. I want the government out of our business and our bedroom. I want to bring the film industry back where she belongs, Hollywood.” To which Alonso responds, “Los tiene bien grandes y esta enojado” meaning, “He has really big ones, and he’s angry.”
“The candidate said the exchanges are meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but to some Latinos, who have taken to Twitter to express their outrage, the spot comes across as bizarre and ridiculous and as a stereotypical attempt to connect with Latino voters.”
You gotta read the whole thing. Clueless. Absolutely clueless, both the candidate and his supporter.
Libby: ” Nobody fried your candidate … he fried himself.”
Apply that standard to Obama, do you?
Neither does the old media or the rest of your devious party.
Libby you guys are such phonies!
So Libby, now you think blacklisting for political views is okay? And suddenly the use of slightly crude language, common to most liberals, is shocking?
Phony!
“In less than 24 hours, the big three networks have devoted 17 times more coverage to a traffic scandal involving Chris Christie than they’ve allowed in the last six months to Barack Obama’s Internal Revenue Service controversy.”
This is a nonsensical comparison. The IRS controversy broke in May. That was eight months ago, not six. For an honest comparison, Newsbusters should compare news coverage of Christi now to news coverage of the IRS controversy during the first two months that the story broke. Their current comparison doesn’t prove bias, it proves that Newsbusters is bad (perhaps intentionally so) at media criticism.
“So Libby, now you think blacklisting for political views is okay?”
Well … again … I mean, I didn’t want to rub your nose in it … it’s in the article. I’m afraid that your source has misrepresented the facts to you again.
Ms. Alonso quit. She was not fired.
And it was kind of spineless of her, really. It’s highly unlikely that anybody would, really, have set fire to the theater. People mostly just say things like that when they’re angry. I’m afraid that the silly woman has infuriated a lot of people.
Chris Newsbusters has been pointing to liberal media bias for decades and they have the stats when they do.
I’m not surprised you don’t see the extreme bias in the example. It seems perfectly reasonable to you that the old established media would intensely and negatively cover a story that smears a right wing guy and merely pepper the days news with a more positive slant on breaking possible scandals in this administration.
The stars in your eyes and the fog in your head may be affecting transmition, not to mention brainpower.
A concentration of news that is lightly peppered and sympathetic, even over several weeks, is barely noticed by the public. It won’t register as something the public should care about.
On the other hand, a continuous negative hammering of story over just a few days will have an impact. The old media is out to destroy the governor and their bias is stark. It mirrors your own. Obama had nothing to do with the Benghazi talking points coverup but Governor Christie is already deemed guilty as charged.
“Newsbusters should compare news coverage of Christi now to news coverage of the IRS controversy during the first two months that the story broke.”
Actually I think they have:
Scott Witlock, Newsbusters
If the networks didn’t spend more than two minutes in six months on a story they also didn’t spend more than two minutes within the first two days!
Aren’t you the one who is constantly berating me and other commenter’s about math and reading skills?
Tina: “Chris Newsbusters has been pointing to liberal media bias for decades and they have the stats when they do.”
That’s nice, I guess?
That doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that in this case, their comparison doesn’t make any sense.
“I’m not surprised you don’t see the extreme bias in the example. It seems perfectly reasonable to you that the old established media would intensely and negatively cover a story that smears a right wing guy and merely pepper the days news with a more positive slant on breaking possible scandals in this administration.”
But Newsbusters hasn’t demonstrated that in this instance.
Again, the IRS story first broke in May–eight months ago. The Chris Christie story is less than a month old.
Newsbusters decided to look at coverage of the IRS scandal over the course of the last six months, which *excludes* the first two months of the IRS scandal. Therefore, Newsbusters is not making an apples-to-apples comparison. They are comparing coverage of a news story that was, by the time they started measuring coverage, already two months old, to a news story that is less than a month old.
Do you understand why that is not a valid methodology?
Do you understand that other factors, such as novelty and initial excitement, might have more of an influence than bias when comparing an old news story (by modern media standards) to a brand new one?
“The stars in your eyes and the fog in your head may be affecting transmition, not to mention brainpower.”
Please don’t do this. The argument made by Newsbusters was clearly illogical, as I have demonstrated. Talking big like this when you are in the wrong just makes you look worse.
“On the other hand, a continuous negative hammering of story over just a few days will have an impact.”
OK, but Newsbusters hasn’t shown that the IRS scandal didn’t get similar treatment, because their analysis completely excludes the first two months of the story.
“Obama had nothing to do with the Benghazi talking points coverup”
It’s not that Obama had nothing to do with the Benghazi talking points coverup. It’s that there was no talking points coverup. No one, on any level, has been shown to have ulterior motives in devising the talking points which claimed that there was an anti-video protest before the attack. This claim was based on the information they had at the time. It was an intelligence failure. There was nothing TO cover up.
“but Governor Christie is already deemed guilty as charged.”
By whom? Show me what media station is saying that Christie is guilty.
“Actually I think they have:”
No, they haven’t.
“Scott Witlock, Newsbusters
In less than 48 hours, ABC, CBS and NBC deluged viewers with coverage of Chris Christie’s traffic jam scandal, devoting a staggering 88 minutes to the story. In comparison, these same news outlets over the last six months have allowed a scant two minutes for the latest on Barack Obama’s Internal Revenue Service scandal. The disparity in less than two days is 44-to-one. [See a chart below.]
From Wednesday through Friday morning, the latest on Christie’s Traffic-Gate led 11 out of 13 news programs. NBC produced the heaviest coverage, over 34 minutes. CBS followed close behind with more than 30 minutes. ABC came in third with just under 23 minutes.”
See above. Six months is the wrong time frame to look at, since the IRS story broke eight months ago.
“If the networks didn’t spend more than two minutes in six months on a story they also didn’t spend more than two minutes within the first two days!”
*sigh*
One more time:
The story broke eight months ago. Since Newsbusters only looked at the past six months, they did not look at the first two days of coverage.
It’s also quite amazing that you actually believe the mainstream media didn’t spend even two minutes, in total, covering the IRS scandal. You would have to be extremely uninformed to believe that, the the point where you shouldn’t even try to criticize the mainstream media, since you don’t know anything about what they do and don’t cover.
“Aren’t you the one who is constantly berating me and other commenter’s about math and reading skills?”
Yes. Thanks for showing, once again, why that is necessary.
I refuse to be defined by Cuomo or any democrat who believes they’re right and I’m wrong based on who they think I am. I’ve always lived by Dr. King’s statement about the content of character instead of skin color. I don’t care what a person looks like, but when they open their mouth things may change.
Democrat Cuomo is sounding a lot like democrat George Wallace with his segregation talk of not wanting others who are different from living where they want. If one is not welcomed in a state are we also going to be forbidden from living in a certain neighborhood or attending a school of our choice? Sounds like the democrat’s political agenda from the 1960s has been reborn in 2014.
I do not hate gays…never have and never will. For over 30 years I’ve had gay friends that meant as much to me as my straight friends. Who they loved didn’t prevent me from loving and respecting them for who they were. They were all good, fun and descent people.
Vacations in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico for five years in a row with a combo of 25-30 gay and straight friends was so much fun. Riding my Harley with a gorgeous six foot tall black gay professional model and her girlfriend was just another adventure shared by those who enjoyed a common love of being in the wind. (It was fun walking down the streets and seeing heads turn at a short chunky blond walking next to someone who’s legs started at my waist.)
I share the above because I am not a racist or a bigot and I won’t let some big mouth democrat classify my as one. Democrats get away with it because republicans have let them with their silence.
Democrats have been on the offense and republicans on the defense for decades. We should not be defending who we are any more then we should be defending the Constitution. Instead we should force democrats to defend their socialist agenda and shredding the Constitution. They’ve rewritten our history, filled our textbooks with lies because we allowed it.
I think what’s going on in Texas with Wendy Davis is the BIG story of the moment. She represents everything the democrats are pushing and she’s done it with repeated lies at worst or gross embellishment at best.
Ms. Davis is supposed to be the torch bearer for women’s rights, abortion on demand at any time, the success story of the under privileged and the role model for girls and young women to believe with just hard work and government help they too can make it.
While all of the truth isn’t out yet what we do know is she wasn’t divorced when she said she was, only lived in a trailer for a couple of months at most, married a man 13 years her senior who paid for her Harvard education with his 401 retirement plan, whom she left the very next day after he made the final payment to Harvard, and he was awarded the children in the divorce to raise not her.
In other words she wasn’t a poor starving single mom, she was a middle class woman who possibly married a sugar daddy and gave up custody for her daughters during the divorce so she could pursue her career. Wow, sure glad I didn’t have her for a mom and role model of what it’s like to really work hard and struggled to be responsible for the kids I gave life to, provide for and still accomplished some personal goals.
Could there be a better example of the “ends justify the means” results and the “win at all cost” philosophy then Ms. Davis?
If Davis, Hillary and Biden are the best the dems have to offer they’re in big trouble. The future does look good with Cruz, Tim Scott, Susana Martinez, Nikki Haley and Rand Paul.
Not surprised to find on the internet the below is the only link to Ms. Davis and her Texas two-step scandal. Once again the silence on the truth and equal coverage to Christie is deafening but not surprising. Don’t like Christie, cuz he’s to liberal for my vote. I just find the amount of time spent covering his “scandal” compared to almost silence for Obama’s, Holder’s, Davis’, etc. speaks volumes.
Note, Fox won’t even call what she said as lies, but instead “flubs.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/21/wendy-davis-under-fire-for-flubbed-details-in-life-story/
I for one have nothing but contempt for Democrats who call certain African-Americans “puppets” and worse just because they identify as Republicans. This is racist, and it needs to stop. One can believe that the Republican party does not cater to the best interests of African-Americans without disparaging any African-American who disagrees in a race-based manner. Defining black Republicans by their blackness reduces their identity to their race, and implies that black people should “know better,” or that they should make all of their decisions based on their race. There’s simply no place for this kind of racially inflammatory language on either side of the aisle. Republicans certainly have their own issues with race, but this is one where Democrats are clearly in the wrong.
“Riding my Harley with a gorgeous six foot tall black gay professional model and her girlfriend was just another adventure shared by those who enjoyed a common love of being in the wind. (It was fun walking down the streets and seeing heads turn at a short chunky blond walking next to someone who’s legs started at my waist.)
I share the above because I am not a racist or a bigot and I won’t let some big mouth democrat classify my as one. Democrats get away with it because republicans have let them with their silence.”
Peggy, that’s a wonderful story and I’m glad you don’t let race or sexual orientation get in the way of sharing great friendships and adventures.
That said, I disagree that Republicans have let Democrats get away with labeling them as bigots “with their silence.” The Republican party, as a group, has hardly been silent about the gay community. In fact, they’ve been quite loud in their opposition. Many on the right (not all) have used incredibly hateful language to demean gay people, and have spread falsehoods about homosexuality in order to deprive the gay community of rights. Some, like Todd Starnes, who is frequently cited at this blog, is a proponent of the draconian anti-gay legislation in Russia. There are also less openly malicious groups who simply say they want to preserve traditional marriage, but they still think the way to do this is by depriving gay couples of their civil rights.
I don’t know your stance on gay marriage, but I refuse to label you as a bigot. To do so is to reduce a complex human being to a simple, unhelpful label; a practice that is at the heart of prejudice. However, I do think you possess some bigoted attitudes–and I’d say that even if you DID support same-sex marriage, because I believe EVERYONE possesses some bigoted attitudes. How could we not? We’re raised in a culture that sees the needs and wants of white, straight Christian men as more important than the needs of those who don’t fit those labels. (I fit all four of these throughout most of my life, but have since dropped one of them–I speak from a perspective of privilege.)
Certainly there are Democrats who have accused all Tea Partiers or conservatives of being “bigots.” That’s wrong. To quote Avenue Q, “everyone’s a little bit racist.” I think it’s funny that the Tea Party candidate in the above story mentioned his Filipina wife to prove that he wasn’t racist–as if that makes someone immune to having any unexamined prejudices!
We should all strive not to box people into stereotypes and easy labels. I am tired of Democrats calling everyone bigots, but I am also tired of Republicans acting like bigotry isn’t a real thing that affects all of us. Individually, it’s unfair to call most people bigots. However, we all do have bigoted attitudes, and that’s something we need to recognize and fight.
Sorry, that was very rambly and probably incoherent. Have a good night!
Chris: “Newsbusters decided to look at coverage of the IRS scandal over the course of the last six months, which *excludes* the first two months of the IRS scandal.”
Two problems with your exclusion excuse. 1. The article is an update on the findings, and 2. Newsbusters notes that the media gave only “a scant two minutes for the latest on Barack Obama’s Internal Revenue Service scandal.
They had no time for new information (breaking news) on the IRS scandal. They have been manic on the Christie story.
Like I wrote it is not surprising that you don’t find this unusual. You did not, to my recollection, find anything unusual about how Sarah Palin was treated as a VP running mate when in fact NEVER before in the history of elections has anyone been treated so shoddily by the press nor vetted more intensely.
You do not see media bias because you choose not to see it.
Libby: “Ms. Alonso quit. She was not fired.”
Ms Alonso did quit after being berated and told she was not welcome. Early reports were that she was fired, It’s entirely possible that threats along those lines were delivered and she managed to negotiate leaving instead for her future career.
This isn’t the only instance where Hollywood has blacklisted people for not getting in line politically. many actors have and do feel intimidated into silence so don’t pretend that your extremely intolerant party is.
Peggy I agree with you about every single thing you said…Kudos!
Chris: “Many on the right (not all) have used incredibly hateful language to demean gay people, and have spread falsehoods about homosexuality in order to deprive the gay community of rights.”
Many gays have used equally hateful language to describe Christians in order to deprive them of their rights and have spread lies about them.
There are also people in both camps who can’t tell the difference between an honest position and hate or racism.
The left seems particularly incapable of grasping differences of opinion and is capable of both hate and bullying in expressing themselves about it. They have a record of targeting people and business for personal destruction just for holding different political views or for just being a dynamic, charismatic, female VP candidate and speaker as in the case of Sarah Palin.
Generally speaking I would give the right better marks for tolerance in the arena of ideas and attitudes. Conservatives are more willing to live and let live; more likely to defend your right to live and think as you prefer. The left is always dictating and managing. Amazingly they believe there should be no blow back. When they get some the charge is always hate or racism…how could anyone disagree with them it must be hate or racism!
Tina, I am going to have to insist that you stick to the facts. Ms. Alonzo was not fired. She has not been blacklisted.
However, if the citizens of LA decide to boycott the production because of her participation … are you saying they have no right to do this?
And if the producers of the said production are glad to be spared the threat of a boycott, can you blame them?
You cannot claim institutional conspiracies where none exist. I will not allow it.
Chris 12#: “The Republican party, as a group, has hardly been silent about the gay community. In fact, they’ve been quite loud in their opposition.”
Afraid I can’t agree with this. I’ll admit there are some in the republican party who feel this way, but a growing number of conservative individuals do not and it’s one of the primary reasons why the Tea Party was formed by individuals who put a priority on fiscal instead of social issues. Just look at the division that has taken place in the Calif. GOP. The CRA used to be the major voice of conservatives, but with all of the infighting it’s a minor organization now.
“…I believe EVERYONE possesses some bigoted attitudes.”
I’m going to agree and disagree with you on this only because I prefer to call them flaws instead of bigoted attitudes. None of us are perfect and to say I haven’t been afraid alone on a street for fear that someone would do me harm would be a lie. I’m only saying I believe my fear would come from their behavior and not from the color of their skin. Could I say I’d react that way 100%? No. Would I hope to? Absolutely.
“We’re raised in a culture that sees the needs and wants of white, straight Christian men as more important than the needs of those who don’t fit those labels.”
This statement speaks volumes. I can only respond with how wrong it is from my view point as a white Christian woman who’s husband also treated others as he would have his own brother and sons. It is completely foreign for me and hope it’s not a reflection of the majority of male democrats.
Things are changing from a culture of Christian values to non-Christian, while intolerance is evolving to grant gays the right to marry but deny a baker and photographer the right to live by their religious beliefs. One’s right should not be at the expense of another’s.
As a Christian I do believe in a marriage being between a man and a woman. But, our Constitution guarantees us the right to peruse happiness. I take that to mean we each get to determine what makes us happy. It’s not defined by others. So, if same sex couple want to get marry they should be allowed to under our laws. (God’s law is another matter and a whole other discussion.) But, that same sex couple should also in turn not force their beliefs on others who believe differently.
“We should all strive not to box people into stereotypes and easy labels. I am tired of Democrats calling everyone bigots, but I am also tired of Republicans acting like bigotry isn’t a real thing that affects all of us.”
Once again Chris I really hope this isn’t coming from a young Democrat’s view point. Yes, it does exist, but I really don’t see it as a major issue from the republicans. We’re more concerned about fiscal issues and not saddling you and your kids with high taxes that will rob you of the life-style you want because of our spending today.
Wow, it’s late. Good night.
Tina: “Many gays have used equally hateful language to describe Christians in order to deprive them of their rights…Conservatives are more willing to live and let live; more likely to defend your right to live and think as you prefer.”
When your marriage is on the ballot, then you can make this claim. Until then, this is a totally false equivalence.
Tina: “Two problems with your exclusion excuse. 1. The article is an update on the findings,”
OK, but that doesn’t change that the “update” relies on a false comparison. If Newsbusters has examined press coverage of the IRS coverage during the time period that the story first broke, let’s see that.
“and 2. Newsbusters notes that the media gave only “a scant two minutes for the latest on Barack Obama’s Internal Revenue Service scandal.”
You are leaving out “in the last six months.” Again, since the IRS story broke eight months ago, and the Chris Christi story isn’t even two months old, this is a dishonest comparison.
“They had no time for new information (breaking news) on the IRS scandal. They have been manic on the Christie story.”
That’s because there hasn’t BEEN much new information on the IRS story. There has been a lot of new information on the Christie story. IT’S A NEW STORY. What part of that do you still not get?
“You did not, to my recollection, find anything unusual about how Sarah Palin was treated as a VP running mate when in fact NEVER before in the history of elections has anyone been treated so shoddily by the press nor vetted more intensely.”
I did point out that she was treated in a sexist manner by some. However, a large reason that Sarah Palin was treated differently is because she presented herself differently. She sought out the limelight in a way no VP ever had, and she continues to do so even though she no longer has any concrete political aspirations beyond selling books and making TV appearances.
“You do not see media bias because you choose not to see it.”
I don’t see it in this case because you haven’t presented the evidence. Try again.
Oops, “peruse” should have been pursue. Darn spell check the curse of a bad speller.
Libby: “…if the citizens of LA decide to boycott the production because of her participation … are you saying they have no right to do this?”
But it isn’t “the citizens of LA”. The citizens of LA who would not have boycotted the show now have no opportunity to vote in favor of Alonso’s inclusion in the production.
And, no, I am not saying that.
“…if the producers of the said production are glad to be spared the threat of a boycott, can you blame them?
I don’t blame them. But they could have made that business decision before hiring AND, they could have made the decision without all of their political crap being exposed. Why was she hired in the first place? It’s not like Alonso hasn’t expressed political views before and its not like there’s a shortage of out of work actors, either.
You cannot claim institutional conspiracies where none exist. I will not allow it.
No such claim was made. The hypocrisy in the situation was just pointed out using the two things that ring true: 1. Liberals pretend they are inclusive and tolerant…they are not, and, 2. They pretend that exclusion for political sympathies (blacklisting) is unforgivable but in truth would and do take this position on an individual basis.
Now I would call choice this a private business decision were it made up front in hiring. I don’t think anyone should be forced to hire someone they wouldn’t be comfortable hiring.
And I don’t care what you would “allow”. As little children say, “You are not the boss of me.” Not even if you think you are.
As an aside, I think the people in the entertainment business will rue the day that they put politics above their business. It is destroying the quality of entertainment in the industry. When it chooses politics over entertainment it becomes preachy and tiresome. Bette Davis talked about maintaining a certain mystery and illusion in films and never breaking through that invisible curtain. She said too much reality destroys entertainment value. I think she was on to something. Political film makers compromise the main goal of the business.
Unfortunately, extremists leftists are destroying our nation and making the necessity of getting involved a more compelling motivation than maintaining the mystery. Ms Alonso has seen fellow actors praise and fawn over Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, men who have acted as tyrants and destroyed the nations of her birth and upbringing. I can’t blame her for speaking out in defense of freedom and against the totalitarian progression that “fundamental transformation” and leftist politics lead to. She has family members who are living under the terrible conditions in Venezuela and who were forced to flee the horror and tyranny of the Castro regime.
Chris: ““We’re raised in a culture that sees the needs and wants of white, straight Christian men as more important than the needs of those who don’t fit those labels.”
This is the problem with making every aspect of our personal lives a national rights issue and also making the government the solution to our individual problems and situations. If government has no business telling adults what they can do in their bedrooms they certainly don’t have any business changing the meaning and definition of traditional words like marriage and it has nothing to do with race or sexual preference.
The nation was founded on freedom. Gay men should be able to live as they choose and be treated with dignity by their fellow citizens. They have in the last thirty years pressed for and realized that goal with very little resistance from the public. There was very little resistance because most people in America are very tolerant and do believe in equal rights and live an let live.
When the sodomy law in Texas was overturned there was no protest to speak of. A vast majority of the people thought it was the right decision.
Protestation and contention arose when the gay community shifted its goal. Where they once said they had a right to live an “alternative lifestyle” (their words) in dignity they now were saying that wasn’t good enough. Now they wanted their lifestyle sanctified as the same as a marriage. They now ask people to agree that marriage doesn’t describe the union of a man and a woman but can mean a living arrangement of any two (or more) individuals. The disagreement isn’t about denying individual rights but upholding the meaning and practice of marriage. That isn’t bigotry or intolerance it is defense of the building block of civilization, the family. The marriage commitment was already being undermined by easy divorce, acceptance of open marriage, tolerance of indiscriminate casual encounters and affairs and the encouragement of casual “hooking up” by teenagers.
It isn’t the governments business to meet the “needs” of individuals regardless their lifestyle choices, race, or religion. It is up to individuals to manage and meet their own needs. And if our tax and property rights laws are not treating every citizen equally…and they are not….then maybe we should look at the fact that the federal government has too much power in all of our lives and need to be drastically reformed so that it doesn’t.
If children are being bullied in our schools then the authority of adults has been undermined in our schools and our homes. The progressive dismantling of adult authority and moral clarity is the cause. The rule that covers everyone is very simple, easy to understand and enforce. We don’t bully or harm another human being; we treat everyone with respect. Breaches will result in immediate consequences, no arguing and no excuses.
America operated well under that simple rule in classrooms, in business, and even in politics more generally than today. It was practiced by people of all races and religions. The only exception was the blatantly wrong segregation and racism that existed mostly in the South which was tolerated for way too long. This wrong does not change the fact that the rule, the golden rule, worked within that black and the white community. It worked because its basis is our shared humanity and not the trappings and arrangements of our relationships.
ChrIs: “When your marriage is on the ballot, then you can make this claim.”
But my marriage IS on the ballot. The gay push for relationship equivalency is not only a fabrication but destroys the meaning and purpose of marriage.
Accept for the probability of children resulting from my union, marriage, there would be no reason for my marriage. What would be the purpose for the legal commitment? Love? As we have demonstrated through the destruction of marriage law, love is a lousy reason to create a contract. Love is easily tossed aside when another, more exciting, drifts into the picture. Even belongings and property aren’t compelling…ask anyone that’s been fleeced by a gold digger or the poor schlub living in a trailer while his ex enjoys his old lifestyle on his dime. Children once were THE compelling reason for the marriage contract and commitment but progressivism has changed the culture so that there is no real respect for the needs of children…not in the womb and not in the family or a binding marriage agreement. Children are simply in the way of personal needs and desires and staying in a marriage and working out differences is unnecessary.
Call it the last nail in the coffin for civilization. I think civilization can be defended and preserved without stepping on the toes of the gay community but it would require of them that they put something besides themselves first and accept what is acceptable to everyone, civil unions with whatever trappings they desire and drastic reform of our tax laws so that everyone is treated the same.
Me: You cannot claim institutional conspiracies where none exist. I will not allow it.
Tina: No such claim was made.
Well, then … what does blacklist mean to you, exactly? The Hollywood version is where producers refused to employ actors, writers, directors, etc., on account of their beliefs. Ms. Alonzo was not fired, and she has not been subsequently refused employment by anybody … so?
“But my marriage IS on the ballot. The gay push for relationship equivalency is not only a fabrication but destroys the meaning and purpose of marriage.”
Tina, if you really think that a same-sex union somehow diminishes your own … I must suggest that that is your problem, and nobody else’s. I can’t see any reason to hold such a belief, actually.
Unless … it’s that you consider homosexuals to be lesser human beings than yourself? If that’s the problem … well, that is your problem.
And the whole children thing … you just haven’t been paying attention. One of the many reasons this issue has evolved so quickly is that gay couples are raising kids all over the place. And some of us, most of us I’m afraid, have decided that in these circumstances, there is just no moral, decent reason why they should not be on exactly the same moral, social and legal footing as everybody else in our society.
Tina: “But my marriage IS on the ballot. The gay push for relationship equivalency is not only a fabrication but destroys the meaning and purpose of marriage.”
You’re proving my point about privilege.
Your marriage is only on the ballot in the most abstract sense possible. Your concern over the “meaning and purpose of marriage” is an abstraction. If gay marriage were federally legalized tomorrow, you would lose nothing, except for some intangible semantic argument.
Yet when you voted to annul the marriages of thousands of innocent strangers back in 2008, you were taking away real, tangible things from them. Things like social security benefits, the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital without question or extra paperwork, inheritance (not to mention general household stability),…you took all that from them.
What you are saying above is that you were right to do that, because your completely intangible and abstract losses are somehow more important than the very real losses suffered by gay couples who were already married, or who would like to marry in the future.
You’re saying that your need to define marriage–an institution which, it should be noted, has had huge, fundamental, definition-altering changes before, otherwise you wouldn’t be allowed to even write on this blog without your husband’s permission–is somehow more important than the needs of gay couples to access the 1,138 federal benefits of marriage.
That’s bigotry, Tina. It isn’t based on hatred or a personal animosity toward gays as individuals. It is based on your unexamined, subconscious assumption that your needs are more important than theirs.
I know you’ve never thought of it this way. That’s why most bigotry is so insidious. But that is what you said.
Bigotry is not just lynchings, segregation and “____ Need Not Apply” signs. It exists in all the subtle ways our society tells us that certain classes of people are more worthy of respect than others. You have the luxury of not even noticing those subtle reminders. Not everyone does.
“Accept for the probability of children resulting from my union, marriage, there would be no reason for my marriage.”
I find this silly, not to mention offensive to pretty much every married person, whether they have children or not. It’s offensive to childless and intentionally child-free couples to imply that their marriages are pointless or somehow less legitimate than yours. And it’s offensive to married couples with children who realize that while their children contribute immensely to their marriages’ value, their marriage has value in other ways as well.
Lest you accuse me of political correctness (quelle horrere), your argument isn’t just offensive–it’s factually untrue. There are many other benefits of marriage that society has a vested interest in that have nothing to do with children.
“What would be the purpose for the legal commitment”
Marriage is a built-in support system. Married people are less likely to be on welfare. They live longer and have fewer health problems. They commit less crimes. They are less likely to turn to drugs and alcohol. They make more money. They are more likely to be involved in the community than single people.
These are all statistically true even when factoring in married couples with no children.
It took me fifteen seconds to think of all those reasons why the government might license marriage, and fifteen seconds to write them out. If you can’t think of one single reason why marriage is important other than “babies,” you’re not even trying.
I mean, really, Tina: did you feel like you were getting nothing out of your marriage before you had a child? I find that hard to believe.
Your argument also makes no sense because we allow people to marry even if there is no chance of producing a child. Women who have had hysterectomies are allowed to marry. By your logic, they should not be granted federal marriage rights, since no child can possibly result from such a union.
But you would never propose such a thing, because women who’ve had hysterectomies are a more sympathetic target than gay people. They are not an oppressed class of people who have been stigmatized and marginalized throughout history. Most social conservatives would find such a proposal cruel, despite having no problem denying marriage rights to gay couples even though both rules would be based on the exact same logic.
Opponents of same-sex marriage simply don’t base their opposition on consistent principles of logic, but on tribalism and privilege. It’s not about definitions or rationality, it’s about selective empathy and deep-rooted cultural assumptions of superiority.
“Children once were THE compelling reason for the marriage contract and commitment”
This is revisionist history. You can look at many societies and cultures for evidence that marriage on average has been more about property rights than children (although the two concerns have certainly been linked).
Marriage has not always been between a man or a woman. Marriage has not always been between two people. Marriage has not always been about children.
The one thing marriage has always done is create new legal families. That’s something that same-sex marriage does as well.
“but progressivism has changed the culture so that there is no real respect for the needs of children…”
Supporting same-sex marriage does not show a lack of respect for the needs of children. Opposing same-sex marriage does.
Granting same-sex couples marriage rights would help children raised by same-sex couples by ensuring that they are raised in a more stable home. On a secondary note, it sends a message to children who are struggling with their sexuality that if they are gay, they will be able to have a normal, happy romantic future, and will not have to settle for second-class citizen status due to their unchosen orientation.
The emphasis on “children” and “family” in the anti-SSM movement is nearly Orwellian in its dishonesty. It begs the question: WHICH children? WHICH families? Whatever the noble goals of the so-called “pro-family” movement, their actions have served mainly to retain privilege for certain kinds of families whilst actively disenfranchising and demeaning others.
I can show you children who benefit from same-sex marriage, Tina. I have never seen anyone the “pro-family” movement show a single example of a child that has benefited from Prop 8, or other anti-gay laws. I have never seen any of them show a single example of a child who was harmed by the recognition of same-sex marriage.
Tina: “If government has no business telling adults what they can do in their bedrooms they certainly don’t have any business changing the meaning and definition of traditional words like marriage and it has nothing to do with race or sexual preference.”
But, as you know, the definition of marriage HAS changed many times throughout history. And every time it did, the previous generation wailed and gnashed their teeth about how it would mean the destruction of marriage and civilized society if women were not considered the legal property of their husbands, if men were not allowed to take as many wives as they please, if the races would be allowed to intermarry, etc. etc. These were considered definitional issues just as much as same-sex marriage is.
Appeals to tradition and definitions are logical fallacies, and for good reason. You should stop using them, for both ethical and practical reasons. Not only is it unethical to use arguments you know are not valid; no young person in America is going to be convinced by “Marriage should stay between a man and a woman because it’s always been that way,” which would be an obviously terrible argument even if it were true (which it’s not).
“Gay men should be able to live as they choose and be treated with dignity by their fellow citizens.”
I’m sure this was unintentional, but it’s interesting that you specifically say “gay men.” What about gay women?
“They have in the last thirty years pressed for and realized that goal with very little resistance from the public.”
You…need to do some more research before you say these things.
“Very few establishments welcomed openly gay people in the 1950s and 1960s. Those that did were often bars, although bar owners and managers were rarely gay. The Stonewall Inn, at the time, was owned by the Mafia.[5][6] It catered to an assortment of patrons, but it was known to be popular with the poorest and most marginalized people in the gay community: drag queens, representatives of a newly self-aware transgender community, effeminate young men, male prostitutes, and homeless youth. Police raids on gay bars were routine in the 1960s, but officers quickly lost control of the situation at the Stonewall Inn, and attracted a crowd that was incited to riot. Tensions between New York City police and gay residents of Greenwich Village erupted into more protests the next evening, and again several nights later. Within weeks, Village residents quickly organized into activist groups to concentrate efforts on establishing places for gays and lesbians to be open about their sexual orientation without fear of being arrested.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots#cite_note-carter15-6
“When the sodomy law in Texas was overturned there was no protest to speak of. A vast majority of the people thought it was the right decision.”
And yet last year, a Republican presidential candidate said that it was the wrong decision, and that such laws, when passed on a state level, are constitutional. He attracted little to no criticism from the right for this clearly unconstitutional position.
There are also numerous conservative figures and organizations, such as the American Family Association, who support the draconian anti-gay laws in Russia, which limit free speech by banning positive statements regarding homosexuality. Scott Lively, who ran the AFA chapter in California, had a huge influence on the “death to gays” bill in Uganda and has spoken in favor of similar laws in the U.S. The AFA has never spoken against him for this. Yet when this group is correctly described as a hate group for pushing falsehoods about gays and their attempts to get gay and lesbian celebrities blacklisted (such as their boycott of JC Penny for hiring Ellen DeGenerous as their spokesperson), the reaction of most conservatives is to DEFEND this group and accuse those who call out their hatred of being the real bigots.
Todd Starnes, who has been approvingly cited by this blog multiple times in the past few months, also supports Russia’s anti-gay laws and has said they should be a model for America, despite the fact that they would clearly violate the first amendment.
Sean Hannity was once fired from a local radio show for calling gays “disgusting people” and agreeing with a guest who claimed that eating feces was a common homosexual practice. He also had this extremely hateful conversation with a lesbian mother:
CALLER: I have a son, OK? And I just gave birth to him about eight weeks ago, and I certainly hope that he doesn’t grow up to be like you.
HANNITY: Artificial insemination. Aren’t you married to a woman, by the way?
CALLER: Yes I am.
[…]
HANNITY: This lady just had a child. You know how they do that now?
ANTONIO: Yeah. Turkey baster babies.
HANNITY: Yeah, isn’t that beautiful?
CALLER: Well that’s also a really disgusting remark.
HANNITY: I feel sorry for your child. But do you want to make any more comments? [KCSB, 4/4/89, emphasis added]
Hannity has never walked back or apologized for any of these comments. And there’s no real incentive for him to do so, since conservatives don’t care. In fact, if he were to apologize to the gay community, it’s likely he would lose many of his more far-right audience members.
Again: It’s absurd to blame the left for the perception of conservatives as homophobic and bigoted. Conservatives have done a fine job of presenting that perception all on their own.
If you want to fight this perception, then you actually have to change from within. Blaming the left will not absolve you of responsibility.
“The marriage commitment was already being undermined by easy divorce, acceptance of open marriage, tolerance of indiscriminate casual encounters and affairs and the encouragement of casual “hooking up” by teenagers.”
This is an argument against your position, not for it. All of these things are tolerated in our society, and somehow, the straw that breaks the camel’s back is gay people getting married? How exactly will more people getting married destroy marriage? It doesn’t make any sense.
If you’re actually concerned about all of the above problems, you should be in favor of as many people getting married as possible! The idea that withholding marriage rights from a minority group is somehow going to help the cause of monogamy is ridiculous.
If you want to promote marriage, it’s probably more helpful to, you know, actually promote marriage. The “pro-marriage” movement has let itself be defined by what it’s against. Think of how much good NOM could do with all the millions it’s made if they actually spent that money on promoting marriage, rather than on ad campaign trying to scare gullible voters into believing gay marriage is going to ruin the Western world.
From an article responding to the conservative “definition of marriage” argument:
“[Robert] George and his colleagues draw a stark distinction between laws barring inter-racial marriage, which they unequivocally oppose, and laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage, which they unequivocally favor. They state that “antimiscegenation was about whom to allow to marry, not what marriage was essentially about.” Yet when anti-miscegenation laws were being litigated, prominent players in the debate said they were both about the question of “who can marry?” and the question of “what is marriage?” For example, the trial court in Loving v. Virginia (the case in which the Supreme Court later struck down state bans on interracial marriage in 1967) made a natural law argument against interracial marriage: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” In upholding that opinion, the Supreme Court of Virginia said that the state could legitimately seek to prevent “a mongrel breed of citizens.” At stake was the purpose of marriage, which was viewed as the state’s vehicle “to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens.” Today, all these arguments seem ludicrous. But they were made by courts, not fringe figures, only a half-century ago.
Libby It was made clear to Ms Alonso that her beliefs, as expressed in an ad for a conservative candidate for governor, were unacceptable and she was encouraged to leave, which she did. Her name has not appeared on an actual list but the end result is the same.
Other actors have been equally made unwelcome by left Hollywood because of their conservative views. Others have expressed reluctance to express themselves for fear of losing work.
This doesn’t happen because they didn’t like Alonso’s acting or credentials as an actor but only because of her conservative/libertarian politics.
If you can’t see the parallel you can’t…or is it that you simply won’t?
LOL
Why is it that all non GOP are all bad and the GOP elected are angels no matter what they do?
The Chris Christie story broke in December. The media has picked it up because his history is deep.
Any Politician actually caught in this citizens united bully the opponent if they do not do as instructed needs to be investigated. Republican or Democrat Period.
Bottom Line Christie has a long history of corruption but is not the only politician who is guilty.
Bob McDonald also requested he not be arraigned and charged until he left office. He is being arraigned tomorrow. Why they cut the deal to delay is absurd.
These politicians are 99% corrupt in all parties. The Citizens United has now taken power to those who pay for it.
Marriage? Marriage is no more than a legal financial contract. If one chooses to marry in a Church for a religion than that is their choice.
The reason there is separation of church and state is so not 1 religion can rule the people and write laws just to suppress and control them. How any religious wars has there been? Why did the Catholics kill millions?
A marriage contract is a legal contract.
Religious opinions vary by denomination and are a personal choice. Jesus gave us freewill. We are solely responsible for our decisions. One dictator is not. Abuse of power and using a religion to control and suppress the people is ancient history.
My religion says I should not allow politics and their politicians twist The Bible and abuse it.
The fake Bibles being printed now by the Evangelical Churches are a disgusting bunch of crap. Yes I have a copy and have seen it. It is a twisted Political fairy tale. I compare it to the real Bible and laugh.
Libby: “…if you really think that a same-sex union somehow diminishes your own”
That is not what I have argued.
Every marriage, including mine, is on the ballot if the meaning and purpose of marriage is going to be transformed into something entirely different. Our culture and civility will also be affected if marriage is based on something as tenuous as love instead of responsibility to children and the family.
Basing marriage on love forever changes the dynamic and opens the door legally to any two, or three, or other relationships as marriage. That cannot possibly work in the long run. It won’t harm or diminish marriage immediately; it will facilitate the destruction of civilized society.
The left extremist push is for the destruction of anything and everything traditional. Religion must go unless it is malleable, traditional marriage must go, the age of consent must go, opposing opinion must go, wealth must be redistributed, property and ownership rights denied, the lines between right and wrong must become blurred until they too no longer exist. The need to force sameness, conformity, and equality of outcomes is the game and it is destroying civilization.
Hansen wasn’t talking about marriage, he’s a Democrat and I have no idea what his opinion is on marriage, but the sentiment still applies in my mind. Changing the definition of marriage…undermines the rule of law, ruins the honesty of language, and requires a degree of coercion antithetical to a free society.
” One of the many reasons this issue has evolved so quickly is that gay couples are raising kids all over the place.”
Yes, children in many cases that irresponsible people had and then promptly set aside placing their own self- interests ahead of the child’s who was denied the right to be raised by his parents. (Divorce does the same thing and I’m against easy divorce too) Gays who adopt are at least providing a home for a child that does not have one but even then the child will be denied a mother and a father…often his own.
We treat children, our progeny, like automobiles, they are first of all disposable, but also interchangeable. Something WE want (for the experience but easily abandoned to some other if we grow tired of the experience).
The more we abandon our traditions the more decadent and callous we become and the more we devalue our children, their needs, and our responsibility to them. It’s pretty messed up in my opinion.
“Unless … it’s that you consider homosexuals to be lesser human beings than yourself?”
Instead of getting my argument you attempt to interpret it using that horrid caricature of a conservative that you have fashioned in your head.
“And some of us, most of us I’m afraid, have decided that in these circumstances, there is just no moral, decent reason why they should not be on exactly the same moral, social and legal footing as everybody else in our society.”
Yes you have, as I have already conceded in earlier comments on the subject.
I have also said I understand the emotional an practical issues involved.
I hold no personal hatred or animosity toward anyone. Equality does not mean we all get the same stuff.
Chris, Dewey and others elsewhere in PS
I will get back to you as soon as I can. My time tomorrow is limited so it may be 24 to 36 hours for the long responses.
Tina, I agree that it is wrong to fire or threaten someone for their political beliefs.
That’s why I find it strange that you have supported the American Family Association, which has organized numerous boycotts against films, TV shows and organizations simply for portraying positive depictions of gay characters, or even for using gay actors to sell their products.
As far as I can tell, there was no organized boycott against Alonso. The reaction was extreme–especially those who said they were going to “burn down the theater”–and it was wrong. But the left hardly has a monopoly on this kind of thing.
Did you know that in many states, it is legal to fire an employee simply for being gay? In most cases the victims are not wealthy actors, but average citizens who might have more trouble finding another job. Why don’t I ever see any outrage over this on the right? If it is wrong to fire someone for their political views, certainly it is also wrong to fire them for their sexual orientation? Why is it that when laws are passed to address this problem by adding sexual orientation to non-discrimination laws, most social conservatives seem to react by opposing these laws and falsely claiming that their first amendment rights are being compromised?
“Our culture and civility will also be affected if marriage is based on something as tenuous as love instead of responsibility to children and the family.”
Culturally speaking, marriage is already based primarily on love in our society. It’s the most common reason given for why people get married.
Legally speaking, federal recognition of same-sex couples changes nothing about marriage; the legal contract remains the same, the only thing that changes is who has access. Love doesn’t really factor into the state definition of marriage. Same-sex married couples will have the same responsibilities to each other and their children (if they have any) that opposite-sex married couples currently have.
You’re still applying a double standard, essentially arguing that gay people should suffer for the harm that opposite-sex couples have already done to marriage.
“It won’t harm or diminish marriage immediately; it will facilitate the destruction of civilized society.”
These Chicken Little arguments were put forth when bans on interracial marriage were overturned as well, as you can see above. They were put forth every time women gained more rights within marriage. Can you show that you have more of a case than they did?
“Religion must go unless it is malleable,”
Wrong; religion already IS malleable, and always has been. Take the current Christian opposition to polygamy. This opposition has no real Biblical basis; in fact, the Bible is highly supportive of polygamy. But Christians reject it today because of changes in society. The religion responded to changing social norms in the world.
“traditional marriage must go,”
As I’ve explained before, “traditional marriage” is a misleading term. Actual traditional marriage includes many types of marriage such as polygamy, child-marriage, and arranged marriage that most people who use the term would never support.
But even if I am generous and take your term in the spirit it is intended–that “traditional marriage” means one man, one woman–your statement is still false. One man, one woman marriage does not have to go. No one on the left is saying that only gay marriage should be recognized. “Traditional marriage,” in the sense of “one man, one woman” isn’t going anywhere. It can coexist just fine with same-sex marriage. You’re setting up a false dichotomy.
“the age of consent must go,”
The left is no more into lowering the age of consent than the right is. Keep in mind that the states with the lowest age of consent are all red states. There is no organized effort on either side to lower or eliminate age of consent laws, though there are a few on the fringe of each side trying to do so. Progressives in general feel very strongly about consent as a moral principle.
“The need to force sameness, conformity, and equality of outcomes is the game and it is destroying civilization.”
In the case of same-sex marriage it is clearly conservatives who are trying to force sameness and conformity, not liberals. Proponents of SMM want people to have more options in marriage, and opponents want people to have less.
“The problem with destroying liberty in service to mandated sameness is obvious,”
You haven’t made the case that recognizing same-sex marriage “destroys liberty,” so I don’t see what your point is.
“Hansen wasn’t talking about marriage, he’s a Democrat”
No, Victor Davis Hansen is not a democrat. He is a republican.
“Changing the definition of marriage…undermines the rule of law, ruins the honesty of language, and requires a degree of coercion antithetical to a free society.”
You’ve got to stop saying this. For the eleventy-billionth time: the definition of marriage has been changed numerous times throughout history. Over the past century and a half, most of those changes have benefited you as a woman. “Change is bad” is not an argument. You’re ignoring all of the positive changes in marriage that have allowed you to have the rights you have today.
“Yes, children in many cases that irresponsible people had and then promptly set aside placing their own self- interests ahead of the child’s who was denied the right to be raised by his parents. (Divorce does the same thing and I’m against easy divorce too) Gays who adopt are at least providing a home for a child that does not have one but even then the child will be denied a mother and a father…often his own.”
So…what’s your point? Why shouldn’t these children at least have the stability provided by having their adoptive parents be married?
“We treat children, our progeny, like automobiles, they are first of all disposable, but also interchangeable. Something WE want (for the experience but easily abandoned to some other if we grow tired of the experience).”
Many gay couples want to get married specifically because they know it will help their children.
“I hold no personal hatred or animosity toward anyone.”
Like I said, you don’t have to. It’s enough that you think your needs and concerns are more important than others simply because of your group identification.
“Equality does not mean we all get the same stuff.”
No, it means that similarly situated people are treated equally under the law. A gay couple raising an adopted child is similarly situated to a straight couple raising an adopted child under the law. A gay couple with no children is similarly situated to a straight couple with no children. Allowing the straight couples to marry and not the gay couples is arbitrary discrimination, which is illegal and unconstitutional.
“Libby It was made clear to Ms Alonso that her beliefs, as expressed in an ad for a conservative candidate for governor, were unacceptable and she was encouraged to leave ….”
You do not know that. No one has said so. Not Ms. Alonzo … not the producers.
“encouraged to leave” (and absolutely no party to this situation has made any such statement (unless you consider some right-wing propaganda mill to be a party, which it ain’t) is not the same thing as “glad she’s gone.”
There is no “blacklisting” anywhere in this.
Libby: “…if you really think that a same-sex union somehow diminishes your own”
Tina: That is not what I have argued.
Libby: You didn’t say this? …
Tina: But my marriage IS on the ballot. The gay push for relationship equivalency is not only a fabrication but destroys the meaning and purpose of marriage.
And then … you go off on the children thing again, which is bogus. I suppose I should concede that up there in the hinterlands, it’s not so much of an issue, but the rest of us intend to proceed with the regularization of same-sex unions … for the sake of their children … among other things.
We do seem to be operating in alternate realities.
Or … maybe we could come to terms … if you would admit that it’s the regularization of buggery that’s got your knickers in a twist.
I wouldn’t hold it against you. Sex, in all its manifestations is totally groady. The thing is just … not to think about it.
LOL, Libby. You probably spend all your time concocting such drivel just so you can hat ugly caricature in your head…what, now I’ve got a big mole on my nose or perhaps horns?
If my problem was the “thought” of buggery I wouldn’t favor civil union as the means to a suitable end.
“Sex, in all its manifestations is totally groady”
Okay…????
“…not to think about it.”
I can agree with this in one respect…it’s none of my business what other (consenting) adults do and I’d prefer they kept their business to themselves.
Children are the future. We have a moral obligation to hand them a nation better than we inherited. Unfortunately, our generation has destroyed the moral fiber of the nation, marriage, and the family. We have devalued human life. We have lowered educational standards. All of this has taken an especially high toll in minority communities but it affects us all ensuring generational poverty, a declining middle class, and filled prisons. Marriage is now reduced to a ceremony for financial gain or love…both reasons now exploitable in the courts. Brave new world just around the corner but don’t give it a second thought. Your nieces/ nephews can handle the decline as long as you don’t have to take an uncomfortable position…and their children won’t mind that we squandered their futures completely.
Chris people boycott things they don’t support simply by refusing to make a purchase and taking their business elsewhere. That is the free market and I don’t have a problem with it. I also don’t have a problem with a business refusing to serve someone. I would have a problem with systemic segregation, a complete shut out by a city or county or state.
It is another thing also to create an atmosphere of exclusion which is, I believe, going on in the entertainment industry just as in other sectors of the country (Tea Party/conservative groups).
The Alonso incident is an example of what is happening to quite a number of conservative people for the purpose of winning elections. It represents something more than disagreement on issues or winning the argument.
This isn’t just a matter of shunning or boycotting either. Reports that the IRS has targeted a group of Hollywood conservatives that calls themselves “Friends of Abe”. This amounts to an orchestrated movement to block expression and to intimidate stars and others with a conservative message. The New York Times has the story.
In comments/tweets posted at Twitchy on the NYT article revelations:
I also learned recently that the IRS has audited Sarah Palin’s father for eight consecutive years and found nothing…that’s harassment meant to chill speech.
The laws are not being APPLIED equally, which is a real problem.
This should be of concern to all Americans. I know darn well that if Republicans in the industry were excluding lefties for jobs because of their politics or using the IRS to exclude participation in elections or to intimidate and block expression your side would be throwing huge fits!
I think there is a difference between what individuals do in their private lives and businesses and what a political organization and its supporters do to silence their opponents and quell the opposition message.
I imagine a gay business owner in San Fransisco would prefer to work with another gay person or a gay friendly person over a fundamental Christian and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if it happened. We have a right to associate as we choose.
My question is why did they hire Alonso in the first place. She doesn’t hide her politics…and the production was “The Vagina Monologues” for heaven’s sake!
“I also learned recently that the IRS has audited Sarah Palin’s father for eight consecutive years and found nothing … that’s harassment meant to chill speech.”
I tried to check up on this … but I quit. The “Palin Universe” … I … I can’t deal with it.
Chris I have already agreed that your side has won on this issue and we have debated it many times before so I will not respond again to things we have already discussed. I was expressing my opinion, which has not changed. I don’t agree that Gay couples are being denied access to marriage because in my opinion their relationships do not fit the definition of marriage. I also don’t think that tax laws, inheritance laws, or laws that prevent them from accessing programs are fair or right…I would prefer that we revise those laws.
But the naive notion that everyone who seeks marriage for gays has a benign purpose is only kidding himself.
World Magazine:
I realize I have excerpted a huge chunk of this article, however, anyone who is interested in language or the subject (beyond the understandably emotional elements) will want to read the entire article.
Note that already in some cities birth certificates for all children now indicate “parent number 1” and “parent number 2” in place of of “mother” and “father” on birth documents.
Peachy! I see a future in which humanity is a quaint expression
Libby it doesn’t ever occur to you that the media doesn’t fully inform us?
Interesting.
The information comes from Palin’s brother:
Bloggers like this one have posted the story.
This is the reason bloggers exist. I know it was much easier when the left had it all to themselves…tough beans.
The pattern in this administration to divide the nation and harass political opponents is getting to be so obvious that even you would be worried were you not so very partisan. If I recall you used to accuse me of such partisan loyalty…and not in a nice way…just for saying that although Bush’s spending was bad at least he had an average debt to GDP ratio. Can you honestly say that if a republican administration had targeted opponents as this administration has you wouldn’t screaming bloody murder?
Tina: “Chris I have already agreed that your side has won on this issue and we have debated it many times before so I will not respond again to things we have already discussed. I was expressing my opinion, which has not changed. I don’t agree that Gay couples are being denied access to marriage because in my opinion their relationships do not fit the definition of marriage.”
And you are entitled to your opinion. You’re not entitled to enshrine that opinion into law at the expense of your fellow citizens. Since you seem to agree that the issue has been won, can I assume that if this issue ever comes up on a ballot again, you won’t make the same decision you made in Prop 8? After all, if recognition of gay marriage is an inevitability, what’s the point of drawing this out? If it’s going to happen eventually, then it seems like all of the efforts of the anti-SSM lobby are simply causing unnecessary harm to same-sex couples for no practical purpose.
“I also don’t think that tax laws, inheritance laws, or laws that prevent them from accessing programs are fair or right…I would prefer that we revise those laws.”
Glad to hear that. However, the simplest way to address this issue is to allow them access to a marriage contract. Inventing a whole new category with all the same rights and obligations is redundant, and encourages bureaucratic waste.
“But the naive notion that everyone who seeks marriage for gays has a benign purpose is only kidding himself.”
This seems like a strawman. I don’t recall anyone arguing that “everyone” who is pro-marriage equality has a benign purpose. What would be the point of that claim? The rightness of wrongness of a position does not depend on every single supporter of that position being a saint.
However, the article you cited to prove a lack of “benign purpose” doesn’t exactly show anything sinister. Yes, changing definitions of words has an effect on how people see the world; that’s kind of the point. In the eyes of SSM supporters, recognizing that gay couples can be married in the same sense as opposite-sex couples changes how people see the world for the better. It will help people see gay couples as equal to straight couples. The author of the article you cite, at least in that portion, doesn’t explain how changing the definition of marriage to accommodate same-sex couples (as numerous dictionaries already have) will change the way people think in a negative way.
“Note that already in some cities birth certificates for all children now indicate “parent number 1″ and “parent number 2″ in place of of “mother” and “father” on birth documents.
Peachy! I see a future in which humanity is a quaint expression”
But that’s silly. It’s a government form. The government already uses a lot of euphamisms on tax forms. Children are called “dependents” for the purposes of tax forms.
Thinking that these government forms are going to cause us to see each other as robots reveals a misunderstanding over how language works. Culturally, gays have been getting married and having children for decades. They’ve adopted the terminology of marriage (“husband,” “wife”) already. This has been met with more and more acceptance, especially from the younger generation, and will continue to do so even with the absence of government recognition.
The cultural definition of marriage has already changed to include same-sex couples. As usual with issues of civil rights, the government is a Johnny-come-lately. All they can do at this point is decide whether same-sex couples will be treated the same under the law. But they can’t stop social change.
Tina, perhaps it seems unreasonable to you that the mainstream media doesn’t treat everything posted on Sarah Palin’s brother’s Facebook page as breaking news…but can you see why some of us don’t take such things so seriously?
Dewey: “Why is it that all non GOP are all bad and the GOP elected are angels no matter what they do?”
You perceive it this way because you have ventured onto a conservative blog.
If you want to read more where non-democrats are all bad you might try Media Matters, moveon.org, or Salon.
” I compare it to the real Bible and laugh.”
What is “real Bible”?
“Gay couples are being denied access to marriage because in my opinion their relationships do not fit the definition of marriage.”
Well, this would be where the “lesser human being” thing comes in, Tina. I know you don’t see it, but I’m afraid we do. You just can’t go around saying that other human beings’ degree of love and committment is not as “marriageable” as yours.
I mean, you can … but it’s bigoted and discriminatory and, consequently, should not be enshrined in the law of the land.
Libby: “Well, this would be where the “lesser human being” thing comes in, Tina. I know you don’t see it, but I’m afraid we do. You just can’t go around saying that other human beings’ degree of love and committment is not as “marriageable” as yours.”
The justification seems to be that love and commitment are unimportant or, at least, secondary to what really matters in a marriage: the potential to produce offspring.
Of course, that ignores the very obvious fact that we let thousands of straight couples marry every year who have ZERO chance of producing offspring, and that puts us right back to where we started.
No one is calling for women who’ve had hysterectomies to be barred from federal recognition of marriage, even though such a marriage would have the same possibility of producing a child as a gay marriage: ZERO. There is no explanation for this discrepancy other than bigotry; women with hysterectomies are a very sympathetic target to “marriage defenders,” and homosexuals are not. The debate is not really about children, or hard and fast definitions, and framing it that way is dishonest. Like so many political and cultural battles, it’s about what kind of people have access to social goods.
Remember when I said most bigotry was subtle? Well, the right-wing reaction to the mass same-sex wedding at the Grammys last night was anything but:
Todd Starnes put out several tweets during the show, which I imagine he watched with bated breath. One said:
“This was not about marriage. This was about bashing God and the church.”
Sure, buddy. It’s all about you.
How f###ing egocentric and bigoted do you have to be to try and turn a celebration of love into an evil plot to victimize Christians? At no point did anyone bash God or Christians. But to Starnes, apparently, simply living ones’ life in a manner that doesn’t comport with a few of the more obscure passages in the Bible is some kind of coordinated attack on his religion and his deity. Mind your own damn business!
He also wrote: “Macklemore launches a hate-filled, bigoted, intolerant diatribe against Christians.” Guy is delusional. He literally has no idea what these words mean; he’s trying to appropriate them because he knows this rhetoric has worked to drum up sympathy for the gay community, so he thinks that if he can play the victim, he can score points too. The idea that gays actually HAVE been oppressed and he hasn’t never seems to occur to him.
This is just a game to guys like Starnes; he has no real stake. He has nothing to lose except his well-crafted sense of superiority.
What a f###ing crybaby.
“Here it comes–the Grammys are mocking marriage.”
No, they’re celebrating marriage, you ignorant tool.
http://www.glaad.org/blog/fox-news-todd-starnes-condemns-grammys-intolerant-gay-inclusion
Then there was Bryan Fischer, who runs the hate group the American Family Association, who tweeted:
“Heads up: Grammy telecast to feature sodomy-based wedding ceremonies.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/27/same-sex-wedding-grammys_n_4674469.html
Many more hateful tweets from everyday bigots can be seen above.
Tim Graham of the Media Research Center said:
“Tim Graham of the Media Research Centre, a Conservative group based in Reston, Virginia added:
“They can say this is not a stunt, but that’s exactly what it is, a piece of musical agitprop to mock the traditional values of conservative American Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others.”
Once again he makes it all about him, and seems to think that the only purpose could be to “mock” traditional values. The insularity is unbearable.
Jim Hoft, the dumbest man on the Internet, wrote this:
“But not before they bashed conservative Christians.
In “Same Love” the rapper Macklemore attacked conservatives:
A pre-conceived idea of what it all meant
For those that like the same sex had the characteristics
The right-wing conservatives think it’s a decision
And you can be cured with some treatment and religion
Man-made, rewiring of a pre-disposition, playing God
Ahh, nah, here we go
America the brave still fears what we don’t know
And “God loves all his children” is somehow forgotten”
This is an “attack?” Somebody call the whaambulance. Macklemore’s lyrics are critical of religious conservatives who use the Bible to justify opposing same-sex marriage, but this is not an “attack.” For the most part, it merely describes their views accurately. The people criticized DO believe it’s a decision that can be cured by therapy and prayer. Is Hoft denying this?
Breitbart’s Christian Toto wrote:
“For one night, an awards show understood what it meant to appeal to the masses. And then the 2014 Grammy Awards fired off a culture war missile aimed at those who believe in a traditional definition of marriage.”
IT WASN’T ABOUT YOU! IT WASN’T MEANT FOR YOU! It was for the gay kids sitting at home watching the Grammys and contemplating suicide because they’re told every day that they’re not good enough by people like you. It was meant to give hope to these kids that they don’t have to hide who they are to be loved.
For homophobes to turn that into something ugly, to act like they are simply being victimized, just shows how wonderful it is that the world no longer agrees with them.
How can conservatives look at these quotes and continue to argue that the anti-gays aren’t opposed to people simply living their lives as they please?
Chris: “the right-wing reaction to the mass same-sex wedding at the Grammys last night was anything but…”
Unless you consider that the Grammy awards was once a celebration of music, enjoyed by all Americans and free of political or social commentary or displays of in your face BS.
The Grammy’s have been reduced to junior high acts of rebellion by an out of control bunch of adolescents too immature to realize they look like clowns.
“Unless”
No unless. Nothing you wrote justifies the bigoted comments I quoted. You’re side-stepping the extremism displayed from your side, as you always do. What do you think about the specific comments cited?