Fred Delivers

By Erick Posted in | Comments (92) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Image(These are my real time thoughts on Fred's speech. I think it is safe to say that his and Romney's are the most important for this crowd to hear)

He came in to the strains of Johnny Cash's "I've Been Every Where."

Jerri, Fred, and the family. The crowd went wild.

Then he starts speaking. He begins with a seemingly distracted aside about his daughter not wanting to get off stage. People laugh. But then he revs up.

It's his usual folksy style. Now here is the interesting thing about Fred. As of now, he really hasn't put out a lot of x point plans where x is some number 4 or higher. He's instead put out a list of principles, but his campaign has not really talked about them.

Right now, though, Fred is delving in. He's talking federalism and why it's a good idea and why it's important. He throws in some God references too. The crowd applauds.

"Our people have shed more blood for the liberty of other people than another other group of people on earth," he says and gets the crowd applauding.

Now here's the thing, though. Fred seems unscripted. And that's a good thing, but it is also a bad thing. People don't want super polish, but then need something.

But then he talks about life. And he begins to choke up. He has to stop. He's talking about how he knows life is so important because of the death of his one daughter and the birth of his other daughter.

The crowd appreciates it and then he gets to this. "As President of the United States, no legislation that supports this procedure [abortion] will pass my desk without my veto." The crowd likes it.

Now he's on gay marriage. Fred says he wants "a constitutional amendment to stop this particular brand of judicial activism in its tracks." Before he gets to that point, he says why he thinks it is wrong and gets a few "all rights" from the crowd. Then he points out that he sherpa'ed John Roberts through the Senate.

Fred talks a lot about judges. He says "I know the difference between a good one and a bad one. And we need someone in the Oval Office who doesn't have to call his lawyers to know that difference." A lot of the crowd laughs knowing the Romney reference, and they clap.

He takes an interesting turn here. Fred says that he and Tom Coburn (R-OK) agree that we are bankrupting the country and this is a moral issue. "Those who are yet to be born do not have a seat at the table as we kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with," he says. "We have to blow the whistle on this irresponsibility," gets pretty good applause. He says he's going to talk about social security, which something a lot of people want to hear about, but he says "If you can't tell the truth, you shouldn't be President."

"The will of the people is at least as important as their military might," Fred begins, quoting from The History of the English Speaking People, as he talks about the military.

"Our optimism doesn't come from what we see, but from faith," Fred says. Then he says he wants to do something about restoring people's optimism in the country and that's why he's running for President. The crowd really liked that one.

He went on to talk about the threat of radical Islam, the need to recognize the threat, and the need to fight it.

This is perhaps the best speech Fred has given. And it was very, very well received by the crowd.

He hit the themes he needed to hit and made sure they knew that, of the big three candidates, he's the only one with the 100% pro-life voting record.

Fred objectively did well.


« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | Brownback SpeaksComments (3) »
Fred Delivers 92 Comments (0 topical, 92 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

His call for a constitutional ammendment would seem to be a switch and move him toward something that Dobson could support.

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

He has always been for that kind of action. But his focus is not on a constitutional amendment saying what marriage is, but rather an amendment keeping judges and other states from forcing it on a state. This has been consistent, and is very consistent with his federalism stance.
I can understand why some traditional marriage proponents would be unsatisifed with this, but as a solid conservative Christian who is also a diehard constitutionalist, I think this is a very good solution.

If a state court rules that legislation is against the
state constitution (vis a vis Massachusetts), How would
that relate to the entire Marriage issue?

---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI

Now? That would make same-sex marriage legal in that state.

But a federal Constitutional amendment could preempt any contrary provision in a state Constitution. Indeed, the Supremacy Clause already says that state Constitutions are preempted by contrary federal law.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

void any state court from deciding on the issue of marriage. It would have to be legislative or citizen driven.

I think Fred is hanging on to the support he has because his supporters have character and don't like to give up too soon on people they believe in, but I feel some disappointment coming. We're getting no big ideas and no real fire in telling us what we already know, and that's hardly any way to gain momentum.

Many of you will disagree with me here but regarding what it takes to get Dr. Dobson's support, I stop caring about it when we talk about amending the constitution to say what citizens may not do. The constitution exists solely to spell out what the state may do.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Between the debate and the post of Erick's, I am moving closer to becoming a Fred supporter.

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

*We're getting no big ideas and no real fire in telling us what we already know, and that's hardly any way to gain momentum.*

What do you mean by "Big Ideas?" Every time Thompson speaks, I hear him lay out several big ideas. Maybe they're just too big?

Are you looking for 3-, 5-, 10-point plans? My belief is they are appropriate for a PARTY to campaign on, not for a candidate. There are too many variables for anything specific. (George H. W. Bush couldn't even come through on a simple one-point plan: "No New Taxes.") The only thing that makes sense is to lay out the principles upon which a candidate will base his later actions. I think Thompson does this every day.

And "real fire?" Do you prefer a machine-gun delivery, like Mitt and Rudy? That's OK, but there are plenty of us who prefer a thoughtful, accurate response, rather than a rapid-fire regurgitation of "facts" to every question.

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

Fred can afford to take a little time to build on it, and I still think he chose a good time to enter the race and thus not waste millions of dollars as some of the other candidates had at that point. I'm just thinking about something he said himself about wanting a particularly "big idea" to warrant a run. I especially hope he'll stay on message with tax reform ideas.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Exactly. And if you had been paying attention to his talk about the amendment, you'd know that this is what he was talking about.
Not an amendment banning gay marrigae, but an amendment banning judicial activism and force the decision back to the public and the legislatures of each state...

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

I believe he has always said that he supports an amendment, just not one that bans gay marriage outright on the federal level. His amendment makes it unlawful for judges to impose gay marriage rights in a state that has made it illegal on their books.

It's not a stretch from there to support DOMA ratified into the Constitution.

What he opposes is the 'strong' FMA, one that defines marriage for the states, rather than just protecting the states from each other, and from federal judges.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

of my list of important issues. It's right in there just above the Fair Tax and the Flat Tax. None of them will happen unless we elect a heavily Republican Congress, and even then it's questionable.

Still, Fred's my man.

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

then I think we have a winner. At least in my book.

Might be a good idea.

It's always better to have multiple good choices than bad ones. We may end up with Fred as the nominee, so it would be wonderful to see him actually start running like a man who could win.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Here TMR and now Here

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report

Fred, I think he was referencing an Amendment about the full faith and credit clause in regards to marriage. In other words leave the definition to the states, but if necessary, write an Amendment stating that states don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states.

Erick, what do you think?

By the way, I thought Fred did a great job. I think explained his heart shift toward life. I'm a woman and I was always pro-life in my head, but until I felt my son kick me in the womb, my heart didn't really understand. Moreover, I liked the idea that Fred alluded to, but did not use his daughter's death for political points, to show this move. Can you imagine, Edwards, oh, I'm sorry you don't have to. Both he and Gore, used family horrors for political points.

I am becoming more of a FredHead everyday. I really think he could be a great President; I hope the Primary voters give him a chance.

I can't figure out why people like Fred Barnes repeatedly criticize everything about Fred Thompson and mischaracterize his statements. They seem to need a candidate who suffers from heartburn.

I think Thompson's heart and principles are in the right place.

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

We must realistically analyze the judicial situation because clearly that is where the homosexual groups are fighting the battle and the only place they can declare victories (the non-stop free marketing efforts of MSM and the public education sector aside). It is obvious that the homosexual agendaist are not comfortable or confident that Kennedy will give them the fifth vote right now. Otherwise they would be fast tracking the issue to SCOTUS. It is also clear that right now a homosexual who was "married" in Mass. could test a state in the 9th Circuit and that Court would find a dormant homosexual marriage clause to the Constitution and demand that the new state grant a marriage license. But the agendaists could not risk having that decision overturned by SCOTUS.
I am hopeful that the Senate Ethics committee hearing on Larry Craig will educate the populace on the true lifestyle of homosexuals. i'd love to hear from the cop in Minnesota testifying as to his experience with homosexuals. Of emergency room physicians discussing the sexual habits of homosexuals and a host of others that could educate the people that contrary to MSM and the stars of stage and screen statements, being a homosexual is not about being a great neighbor, friend and taxpayer.
That aside, it will take years for a Constitutional amendement to be passed. The biggest concern of all Americans who value decency and oppose homosexuals is that the Court will find this dormant homosexual marriage clause before normal people have an opportunity to react with an Amendment. That is why it is misleading for McCain and others to claim the time is not "right". That attitude clearly ignores the judicial reality and the timeline necessary to pass an Amendment.

Never forget, David Souter was nominated by President George H.W. Bush

What about being a homosexual makes one inherently a bad neighbor, friend, or taxpayer?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

To see or hear it told by MSM and the stars of stage and screen, being a homosexual is solely about being a good neighbor, taxpayer and friend.
Similarly, we know its NOT a choice. Why? Because homosexuals inform us its not a choice. Such a scientific proclamation could make us rethink our entire criminal justice system! Did you rape or kill? Nope.
Never forget, David Souter was nominated by President George H.W. Bush

I think the simplest solution to the entire problem would be to simply remove the word marriage from having any sort of legal implications. Leave the term marriage to apply only to the symbolic side of things. And then create a separate term to apply to all unions that have a legal basis (call it a Union).

The combining of the symbolic and the legal is causing the main problem here. If you were to give the term Marriage back to the Religions, then the religions could define it however they wanted. Don't want to recognize Gay Marriage? then your Church doesn't have to.

Simply perform the ceremony and you're married. But to gain the legal benefits of Marriage, you have to go and register your Union.

So, Marriage is protected, and Gay couples can get the legal protection and stability that comes with having a Union. IF they find a church that wants to marry them, that's perfectly fine. But that marriage only has symbolic value in the sense that other religions don't have to recognize that marriage.

As far as the issue of federal recognition of Unions, maybe I'm being too objective, but I can't see how not permitting Unions between 2 consenting adults isn't protected by the 14th amendment.

---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI

If a church is willing to marry 3-8 people? If a church is willing to marry brothers and sisters? If a church is willing to marry a human being and another party?

I appreciate your effort at compromise, but I recommend that we maintain the status quo, being no legal recognition for the filth of homosexuals and their "relationships". I'd start that process by referring to them not as "gay" but homosexuals or the hipper "G.A.P's" "L.A.Ps", etc. ( Gay American People or Lesbian American People)

Never forget, David Souter was nominated by President George H.W. Bush

Blam.

:cracking open Boom Stick:

...just as the pubs were opening...

:reload:

...a stranger came wandering down a dark and windy street:

:reload:

He saw a door ajar...

:snap Boom Stick closed:

...entered the public bar...

:KA-CHUNK:

...said "Landlord, I would like a drink, and something nice to eat."

:Looking around:

Anybody else?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

moe: have you done pure comedy writing before? you should.

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

I'm for this 100%. I think it's the best solution.

Just curious, staceygibb: are you at all disturbed by the intellectual proximity of your position on "homosexual agendaist(s)" to that of ruling Islamic clerics in Tehran?

With some inference on my part (which could wrong), you seem to be standing all but shoulder to shoulder with them on the principles of this issue. I think in Iran they go farther (you can be arrested for any homosexual act, etc), but at the moral root of the question, you seem to share their position that the state should not recognize homosexuality as valid behavior.

I don't mean this as a snark. I'm not trying to score points, I'm just curious.

For the record, I am married and heterosexual. Hooray for me.

Should we analyze our laws in comparison with laws in Islamic states and if there are any similarities, then we should toss ours aside? I believe its illegal to steal in Iran. Uh-oh!

Should we not consider finding common ground on at least some issues with our otherwise Islamic enemies?

Never forget, David Souter was nominated by President George H.W. Bush

So you're saying that, even though we're in a clash of civilizations with an adversary whom we agree is morally bankrupt, we should find common ground with them when it comes to discriminating against homosexuals? Wow.

for meeting it's quota of blatant stupidity, strawmen, non sequiturs and indirect really I am a conservative declarations?

Stacey, if I may call you that since who knows what you are, the gratuitous dumping is just waaay too much. That usually becomes a clear sign your faking what you believe the typcast you are trying to represent is or you are just blatantly and throughly misguided and, how does one say, um, well let's just say some kind of extreme radical.

Now I guess you have figured out where the trip wires are, but suggest you look out for the hidden laser. That would be the one that hits once you have piled up enough fallacious garbage and made yourself look like someone in a candy cane costume at the Easter Parade. Gratis.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

Iranian radicals also have a big issue with you stealing their stereos, which is a view I am certain that you hold as well.
That illustrates what I consider the relevance of the "just like them" argument.
Whatever any group may or may not have in common with any other group is meaningless, unless said thing is also wrong. This is a guilt-by-association, non-sequitor kind of reasoning that suggests there is any equivalence between Islamic clerics and Christian conservatives.

I see. So when it comes to discriminating against homosexuals, Islamofacism all of a sudden is not that big of a deal. My mistake.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

If it rises to that level - in fact, what the heck are you even talking about?

1) The intellectual foundation for DOMA is shared by the prohibition against homosexuality in Sharia Law. Namely: a) homosexuality is wrong, and b) this "wrongness" should be codified in law. Editorially: that may be fine for some people, but not for me. I hate everything Islamofacism stands for, including a state sanctioned prejudice against homosexuality. I'm sure some here will disagree, but that's where I stand.

2) DOMA is a waste of energy. We're currently enmeshed in a generational conflict against a morally reprehensible force, which reduces the question of whether gay people can or cannot get married to an irrelevancy. As I believe I've said before, could you imaging trying to get DOMA passed during WW2? You'd be a laughingstock.

The prohibition against homosexuality, like most of Islamic doctrine was borrowed from a Christianity by a non-literate, non-Christian.
The Bible does speak out against homosexuality, as it speaks out against many other things, most of which we all agree are wrong. However, the Bible never calls for persecution against the sinner. Judgment is not my job, that belongs to God. The flip side of this of course is that the Bible does not give us room to encourage or recognize sin.
DOMA is not about discrimination. It is about maintaining a definition of marriage that has been stable for at least 10,000 years. Marriage has specific purposes in society, and changing its definition only hinders those purposes.

Setting aside the historical and constitutional claims that you're making, here's what I don't get:

If the institution of marriage has been stable for 10,000 years, is gay people getting "married" (or civil unions, or whatever) really that threatening?

Think about the storms that humanity has weathered during that span. Plagues, war, famine, anarchy, etc. You're telling me that gay marriage will be the deathblow?

I don't buy it. The institution of marriage is much, much stronger than that. In fact, the 10,000 years of durability argument could be inverted and used in favor of Gay Marriage.

Anecdotal:

I'm married. I love my wife. My marriage isn't threatened by anything that gay people do or don't do.

Can't we just grant them the same rights the rest of us have, call it something else, and move on to something more relevant to the future of the country?

Would you be OK with that?

NOTE: I've burned the whole day writing this stuff. How do you regular contributors do it?

Can't we just grant them the same rights the rest of us have, call it something else, and move on to something more relevant to the future of the country?

Would you mind pointing out these rights, or even one right, that homosexuals don't have that straight people do have? I'd be kind of curious to learn them. If someone is trying to prevent them from having freedom of speech, or religion, or maybe trying to take away their Second Amendment rights, let me know and I'll help you defend them.

The word "marriage" means something - always has - and that is always between men and women. You are wanting to change the meaning of the word to fit a social agends. The term marriage, or even any similar term with the same generally understood meaning gives implicit approval and endorsement to the arrangement. I would prefer that the government not endorse homosexual marriage.

No point in continuing a threadjack. This should be about Fred.

The Definition of marriage as 1 man / 1 woman has not been stable for 10,000 years. In fact I'd say that the typical marriage arrangement has been Polygyny.

In fact Martin Luthor himself permitted Polygyny in the 16th century. The main overriding factor against Polygamy has been the Roman Catholic Church. In particular the Works of St Augustine were essential in moving away from the old testament idea that Pologamy was accepted.

10,000 years of monogomy? absolutely not.

---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI

If so, point taken. I'm not sure this is the best place to debate huge swaths of history like that, so I'll concede.

Regardless, I maintain that it's not important to codify marriage as one man one woman in the constitution when we have a war going on.

Again: imagine trying to pass DOMA during WW2. It would be an incoherent thing to do and the sponsors of the attempt would have been ridiculed.

The best analogy I can draw is: in 1993 the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) lifted their ban on gays in the military.

Why?

Because when the future of your nation is at stake, you don't have time to quibble over someone's sexual preference.

It doesn't matter. What matters is beating Islamofacism. That's the 'sine qua non' of our nation at the moment.

In your haste to use Stacey as a vehicle to attack Republicans more broadly, in your zeal to compare the right with Islamofascists, you act as propagandist for the Iranians.

They don't 'discriminate against homosexuals,' they torture and murder homosexuals, you royal flaming moron.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

Neil-- I'm not attacking anyone. I'm just asking a question.

Don't insult my intelligence. You're making points and drawing comparisons with your questioning, and we all know it.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

I'm not insulting your intelligence. I'm not insulting anything. I was just asking a question, which I thought is how you conduct a discussion.

Is this question "out of bounds"? If so, say so, and we'll move on.

However, there's no reason to insult me when I've given you nothing but praise, and in fact singled you out as someone here whom I have alot of respect for.

Is that really called for? We can't be civil here?

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

You're not really a lot different from Rep. Stark. When you compare people who disapprove of homosexuality with those who torture and murder homosexuals, you go beyond all bounds of propriety.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

I asked if the intellectual (if I knew how, I'd make this word bold) proximity to Sharia Law felt uncomfortable.

Judging by the anger in your responses, the answer seems to be "yes".

I didn't come here to argue for or against the question of gay marriage. Frankly I don't think it's an important issue. Pre 9-11, I'd say: sure, let's have it out. I don't give a damn. Post 9-11? Please. Could you imagine trying to get a DOMA type amendment passed during WW2?

I challenge you to point to anything I've written, anywhere, that has any KIND of 'proximity' to Islamofascism, and docment that proximity with quotes on both sides, both mine and theirs.

You just made an accusation. Now back it up, sir, or admit your error.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

Because the initial question was for staceygibb, in reference to the long screed that began this whole imbroglio.

Then you decided to step in and hurl insults, which is fine, but not an effective manner of debate. As a result, perhaps you'll pardon me if I don't want to take more time away from my work day to scour the web for Neil Stevens quotes.

Thank you for the sparring round, BTW. You're a formidable adversary, and I still love your work! (not being sarcastic. I remain a Neil Stevens fan).

And thank you for the "sir", sir.

Take it however you want, big guy. If that makes you feel better, go for it.

Don't feed the Troll; Stacy has lost her mind and is trying to highjack the tread.

Does making a reasoned argument that may conflict with the shared opinion of the group make one a troll?

I misunderstood you. Also, my apologies to the group for dominating a thread that should be about Erick's analysis of Fred's speech. I'll pipe down now...

I think Fred will continue to perform as Erick has described here, things people want to see in a leader:

* humble but true
* anchored in common beliefs
* an optimistic outlook for the future, but rooted in the real world
* determined to protect our core values and liberty
* belief in individual value, but not at the cost of communal bonding

I disagree with Fred on a couple of things, like whether or not his proposed amendment will actually protect marriage, but on the whole he hits enough points with me to win the race. Add in Romney as Veep and Guiliani at either State or Defense and I think you wind up with a strong administration. (I'd also be happy with Guiliani as Attorney General, but I'd think he'd want one of the other two as more able to directly affect the GWoT, and I think he's too smart to think you can affect the GWoT from the Department of Homeland Security.)

No problem! I'm glad you're an independent thinker! Stacy is nuts; she's like the Ron Paul's of the world or faux Ron Paul supporters. She comes in, unloads, tries to stir up homophobia, racism, anti-semitism, get us to bit, then link on some democratic website.

What does Lord Voldemort have to do with Stacy? I mean, talk about a non sequitur slam based attack for 2D12 damage...

---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI

I should say bite

I do support Fred Thompson and respectfully request that he examine the constitutionality of forcing the moral beliefs of the homosexual community on even one state or city .
If Fred Thompson has adjusted his position on the passage of a federal marriage amendment then I applaud him. He originally stated he would let each state decide if they want “homosexual marriages”, and try to pass legislation to stop judges from forcing it on other states. His logic was if one state approved homosexual marriage then other states would not be forced to recognize it.
If America had taken Fred's original position in the past, polygamy would be legal in at least one state at this time, and probably nationwide. America rejected polygamy even though it was believed to be moral by one group of Americans, because the majority of American society disagreed. The standard that marriage is between a man and a woman, and only with one at a time has always been our society’s norm.
The real question under discussion is whether America still has the right to set standards of moral decency. We rejected polygamy and should, as a nation, also reject the homosexual redefinition of marriage.
The recent Democratic homosexual debate clearly illustrated that this is not a question of homosexual rights but of the homosexual moral beliefs. The question asked over and over again by the homosexual panelists regarded the Democratic candidate’s opinion on the morality of homosexuality. The homosexual movement is simply a group of people, joined by their common moral belief that same sex relationships are moral and normal.
The current discussion is a reflection of the majority of Americans rejecting this cult’s moral standards. While I grant homosexuals the right to that belief…they can believe it, preach it, try to convert others to their moral standard…they do not have the right to force it upon America via any government entity, not even one state. That Mr. Thompson would be unconstitutional and that is why we need a national marriage amendment.
To allow cities (San Francisco) and small states (Massachusetts) to be taken over by this cult and force their moral beliefs on the people of even that state is unconstitutional. They continue to use the judicial and legislative branches of government to silence those who disagree with their moral standard, aka “hate speech” laws. They are unconstitutionally taking away other Americans right to disagree with the homosexual moral standard. This is not about discrimination it is simply about the right of America to reject a moral standard based on the peculiar practices and definitions of a sexual cult.
I affirm that America still has the right to reject the redefining of “marriage”. Whether it is the polygamy of the Muslim religion or the same sex definition of the homosexual religion…America can and should say NO. Those practices are not good for humanity or our society.
In spite of Melissa Etheridge and Hillary Clinton’s opinion…homosexuality always has been and always will be immoral. They are welcome to voice their disagreement and I would welcome the opportunity to examine the authority or source they use to redefine homosexuality as moral. I don’t believe it can be found in Hillary’s fine Methodist upbringing. That is just the old "smoke and mirrors" trick which she is trying to sell to the American voter.
I also claim the right to freely reject their moral beliefs and affirm that no city, state, legislator, or government has the right under the Constitution to force other Americans to accept the homosexual moral value system, including their definition of marriage.

okaio

May I point out that many of your same arguments were used to propagate Miscegenation Laws in the United States until 1967 (at the time in 1967 72% of americans were opposed to repeal of those laws). It wasn't until 1991 that the majority of Americans felt that interracial marriages were not Immoral and even today there is still 15 - 20% of the population that feels that interracial marriages are immoral or wrong.

Society changes, the world changes. and definitions of what is moral and immoral will change. Those definitions usually take decades to propagate.

---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI

=========
About the Author

Vegas picture

Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he prefers the term mixed breed. Vegas is the ultimate interracial being!

real curious here, where you got your numbers!?

It wasn't until 1991 that the majority of Americans felt that interracial marriages were not Immoral

=========
About the Author

Vegas picture

Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he prefers the term mixed breed. Vegas is the ultimate interracial being!

but in 2000 Virginia had a vote on formally repealing the defunct (under Loving vs Virginia) miscegenation laws. IIRC over 30% of the voting public voted 'no'. This was almost as high as Al Gore's vote in the state.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Are here

1991 was the first year that a plurality approved (though it seems they did not ask the question between 1983 and 1991), a majority didn't approve until 1997.

I can't think of what happened between 1994 and 1997 to cause such a shift - any ideas?

My apologies for mentally mixing up majority versus plurality.

---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28417

tracks the views of America on interracial marriages from
1958 On.

I selected 1967 because that was when they were struck down by the Supreme court.

I selected 1991 as an interesting point about how long it took for society to catch up.

And now, today, you don't hear anyone talking about banning interracial marriages without being dismissed out of hand as out of touch, at best, and racist, at worst.

---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI

Unusual to see a Mindless Self Indulgence reference at Redstate.

That's right, I'm hip. Oh, shut me up.

Anyway, just because some classifications of moral and immoral have changed doesn't mean all such classifications will, nor even that any that have previously changed will continue to. Is it not possible that questions of what is acceptable with regard to marriage will eventually be settled? And if it is not possible, why are you so certain the classifications will continue to liberalize?

absentee

I think the suggestion was more limited. Merely that the particular arguments proffered cannot be taken as decisive.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

And I am not saying that society will accept Gay Marriage in 40 years, just as Interracial Marriage is accepted today. But an additional interesting point. As you ask people who are younger about Homosexuality, and by extension, Gay Marriage you find support increasing as you ask younger people.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27694

Homosexuality as an Acceptable Alternative Lifestyle:
age group support oppose
18 - 24 75% 23%
25 - 54 58% 39%
55+ Years 45% 51

I'm still looking for some firm polling numbers on gay marriage, but I suspect they will bear out the same general trend, the the 18 - 24 group will be much more supportive than the older crowds.

From Fox News: (2003)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103756,00.html
Do you favor or oppose same-sex marriage? 18-19 Nov 03
Age Favor Oppose (Not sure)
18-29 44% 54 1
30-45 30% 60 10
46-55 29% 63 8
56-64 22% 67 11
65+ 11% 80 9

Perhaps more telling, in 2006:
http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=39
support for Gay Marriage remains in the 45% range until
the early 30's then slides to about 30% and holds
steady until age 60, (then slides down further).

I point all this out because the same evidence can be drawn from the Interracial Marriage polls that were conducted. Doesn't mean things will happen the same way. But you certainly can make a case for some striking similarities in the numbers.

RE: MSI - Hip is hip :) and I am alienating my audience...

---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI

You're not alienating. Try putting a Gwen Stefani or Kanye West quote in your sig if you want to start alienating ;)

Anyway, your polling data, and your statement above with regard to data supporting anti-miscegenation laws were apart from your assertion regarding the liberalization of morality.

"Society changes, the world changes. and definitions of what is moral and immoral will change. Those definitions usually take decades to propagate."

I've heard such things hundreds of times, as if it is either proof or justification. If it's merely an observation, it was curious to add it. If it was meant to persuade, then I must assume it is supposed to imply that the liberalization over time that has been seen must continue, and that that continuation is a good thing. What else could you mean?

It is one thing to merely draw parallels between the two situations. You presented the fact of the change over time as if it meant that, because gradual liberalization was good in that case, it was good in this case. I don't think that's particularly persuasive.

I do think it's important to note, however, that in the case of gay marriage, I'm far more invested in the federalism side of the debate than the actual practice.

"is there no standard anymore? What it takes, who I am, where I've been, Belong. You cant be something you're not."

Thought I'd put a music quote in. Little less intelligible, but I likes what I likes.

absentee

Glad you could join the discussion. Of course you may make your point, although I fail to see any relationship to the discussion.

You didn't address any issue or point I presented, perhaps you can't.

Interracial marriage pro or con, has nothing to do with cities or states passing laws to force the homosexual moral standard on America. Your attempt to divert to a different subject in order to bias readers reveals the weakness of your position.
Your argument is common for those who can't defend their position, so you try to misrepresent mine.

Just because it is popularly believed doesn't make it wrong. Our America society has also popularly believed that murder of innocent people is morally wrong. Always has been always will, and that position also has nothing to do with
Miscegenation Laws. If you want to change that definition of morality then it is not unreasonable to ask for justification for the change.

Definitions of morality should change when the original definition is flawed. In Hitler's Germany killing people of Jewish lineage was considered moral. That belief didn't make it moral, just popular. Likewise, the belief you reference was never mine and was never correct, even if it was popular.

If you wish to change the definition of marriage from what is accepted as normal in American society, I welcome your discussion.
Your point is that morality changes (you incorrectly imply that if it’s a popular belief it must be wrong and needs to change).
I ask again, by what standard does it change? Is it a popular vote, a moral awakening, or something else? I look forward to your insight.

You are most welcome to believe whatever you like, that is the beauty of America. The homosexual movement cannot logically present any reason their beliefs should be accepted as the new moral standard for America, so they use unconstitutional means to try to force those views on our society. I say the ruse is over, it is time for real discussion of the issue.
Respectfully,
okaio

---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI

The point I'm trying to make is that society changes, and never did I draw a correlation between a beliefs popularity and it's 'correctness' I was simply pointing out that a belief that had similar implications 40 years ago has since become an accepted part of society.

You are presenting self recognizing arguments, by saying that "homosexual movement cannot logically present any reason their beliefs should be accepted as the new moral standard for America, so they use unconstitutional means to try to force those views on our society." you preempt any points that may be brought to the contrary without any examination of said reasons.

Then you make a point of claiming their means to be unconstitutional. The courts are the ones who determine if laws are constitutional or not (and arguing that equal protection is judicial activism and unconstitutional is a very interesting argument (cref the 1967 overthrowing of the Laws banning interracial marriage, and the implications of rejecting judicial activism therein)) and the 14th amendment is very specific about the concept of equal protection under the law.

Marriage has always been interlinked. Like it or not, Marriage is generally recognized from one jurisdiction to another, and thus the interracial marriage laws are very relevant to how the laws will be interpreted today. As such, because there are laws against gay marriage on the books, and people have begun suing under the 14th amendment (just as was done with the interracial marriage ban). There is no realistic way Bans against gay marriage can be considered constitutional. It has nothing to do with Judicial Activism or 'forcing' a law down smeone's throat. It is simply saying that the restriction against Homosexuals is an artificial one and violates the equal protection clause.

That's why there is the entire movement to have an amendment passed to prohibit gay marriage, just as there was an effort to pass an amendment to ban interracial marriage. "Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians . . . within the United States . . . is forever prohibited." proposed amendment to the constitution to ban interracial marriage (December 1912).

And you are correct. if a moral argument is flawed, you must accept the change that takes place. I would argue that the fight against gay marriage is a flawed one and is based more on societal resistance to change.

And you cannot view what is accepted in America as a static item, as a static snapshot paints an incomplete picture. So what we view as moral now will not be what is viewed as moral in 10 years. similar what was moral 10 years ago will not be accepted as moral now.

Had we went by popularity, Miscegenation Laws would be on the books until 1991 (or later) in some states. as was pointed out so aptly in another thread, in 2000 30% of the people voted against repealing Miscegenation Laws that were still on the books. You are making my point better than I can. Just because right now the majority of people think Gay Marriage is immoral, does not mean that it is, in fact, immoral.
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI

I'm seriously asking because your post sounds like BrooksRob on the subject. He had his own unique definition of morality and then would insist that only his definition be considered when the rest of us would use the term.
You do realize that a very large percentage of this board believes in an absolute morality that does not change, so whether a subject is commonly accepted or rejected is not in the least a relevant issue.

Equal protection has nothing to do with homosexual marriage. They are not being discriminated against. They have every "right" to marriage that everyone else has. You are trying to force the acceptance of a misuse of "marriage" to advance a social agenda.

"That Mr. Thompson would be unconstitutional and that is why we need a national marriage amendment."

Er. Why do we need a Constitutional amendment to fight against something that's supposedly already unconstitutional?

-
NARF

...and the winner of the Wilbur for Best Disguised Shiv Planted into Romney and the LDS is... okaito.

Who had better not do that again.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

The Media is ignoring Fred, if he doesn't do it, no one will. Get the video camera out and film the speeches, quality, other than it must be audible. doesn't matter much.

Good question jper36. There are those who ignore or misapply the constitution. The amendments clarify what the constitution originally intended when necessary. The courts have misinterpreted the constitution and an amendment will clarify and verify the right of America to set societal standards.

bloodstar-
also a valid point. And it brings us back to my original position. The moral standard being espoused by those of homosexual persuasion has been and is being taught to other people's children in public schools, via young people's programs (bisexual dating on MTV), sitcoms, Hollywood figures, etc.

If we had Mohammad and his seven wives pushed on our children in grammar school puppet shows, via sitcoms, etc it would be easy to realize that they were simply teaching their religious/moral views to America's children. The evangelist teachings of the homosexual community have been much better disguised.

As I stated before, I have no problem with the homosexual community believing that moral standard, I do have a problem with their moral standards being taught to minor children without parents consent.

This is exactly why this issue must be discussed and addressed. If people want their children to watch "homosexual church" and receive that doctrine, well that's America.

The problem is that it is being taught under the ruse of "anti-discrimination" "toleration" etc. Hillary Clinton has stated that she believes homosexuality to be moral, that's ok if she wants to believe it. She can promote that as her personal belief but should not use her government position as Commander-In-Chief (should she be elected for example), to force it on other Americans who do not share the homosexual moral system.

The homosexual community is simply an evangelistic group converting others to their beliefs. I affirm that they do not have the right to use any government position to force their personal moral beliefs on America society.
Relating to the point you made, they have actively promoted their beliefs to young people for several years via TV, public schools, Hollywood personalities, etc. I'm simply identifying the movement as a particular group's moral belief.

okaio

Do you honestly think this is true:
"The amendments clarify what the constitution originally intended when necessary."

Because if you do you really should consider a primer in American history and government. Original intent as a judicial theory is one thing but to believe that amendmants (by definition changes) reflect original intent is so far from reality it has to be funny.

Or to put it another way, you think the constitution originally intended to outlaw slavery and the 13th only clarified that for those who spent 80 years making political compromises on the subject before it finally boiled into civil war?

The constitution originally intended women to vote and it wasn't until 1920 that we suddenly realized this to be the case?

Or, originally, the constitution intended for direct election of senators and Article 1, Section 3 just got it wrong?

I mean seriously, you are just using meaningless rhetoric right, you don't actually believe this.

Just noticed your post. My comments were not directed to Mr. Romney or the LDS. I was commenting on historical fact. It is my understanding that the majority of LDS, along with Mr. Romney have also, with America, rejected the practice of polygamy. (There are a few splinter groups still practicing as we know but not mainstream LDS). I'm not sure if it was Joseph Smith himself or a later LDS prophet who actually claimed to receive a revelation freeing them from the obligation to practice it.

No offense was intended, it is a fact of US history. I also have Muslim friends and polygamy is practiced by that group of believers. They see nothing wrong with it and that is their choice but if a Muslim man immigrates to America he can bring only one wife. Societies and cultures are different. I am partial to ours.
Respectfully,
okaio

Thanks for taking time to comment in depth. I have heard those arguments before, I'm not rejecting them without examination, I just don't agree with the logic.

The 14th amendment, commonly called the equal protection clause is probably the most misused amendment in the constitution.

If there were some people who were forbidden to marry anyone, maybe that would be an equal protection issue. Any man in this country can "marry" any woman in this country, and vice versa. The issue is not about "equal opportunity to marry" it is about changing the definition of marriage itself.

Cowboy Bob can't marry his horse (even if it is willing), Sonny can't marry his mother (even if she consents), I can't marry three wives at one time... see what I'm talking about. There is not one person in this country who is forbidden marriage, it is an equal opportunity institution. But if you want to be a polygamist you can do that legally and morally...just not in America, if you would like to marry someone 9-12 years old you can do that, in the country I'm currently living in...it's considered legal and moral, but not in America. These things are legal and moral to some groups of people, but not accepted by the majority of Americans...and refusing to let someone "marry" this way is not a violation of the equal protection clause of our constitution. Same goes for "marrying" someone of the same sex, just not part of American society.

Do you think refusal to allow someone to marry more than one wife or a 9, 12, or 14 year old is a violation of the equal protection clause? They just have a different definition of marriage and morality than most Americans.

Now we're back to the original discussion. I have no doubt you are sincere in your belief and I respect that. That is why an amendment defining "marriage" is necessary in America. Marriage in America is not polygamous, not same sex, not with prostitutes for an hour, not with your beloved dog or horse, not with children...... people can have sex in many ways but America has the right to define marriage based on the American standards, and any group trying to redefine marriage bears the burden of proof. They just can't claim "equal protection" and think everyone will just say "okay".

In America you can freely choose to believe something different, but trying to force your unique view or moral standard on the rest of America is not right, not even using the court system. Neither the constitution nor any amendment in existence supports that.

Thanks again, we disagree but it has been interesting,
Respectfully,
okaio

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service