Powered by TypePad

« Cow Power | Main | Unconvincing But Interesting »

March 29, 2013



As someone else posted on here, I don't see how this doesn't end with polygamy, polyandry, and bestiality combo-weddings. And after the inevitable divorce, the goat will probably end up with the kids.



Hey. Careful what you say about goats. I majored in animal husbandry until they caught me.

Rob Crawford


I don't know how much longer it's going to matter. All this will be is yet another cudgel for the left to use to beat on sensible people.

Obamacare, gay marriage, disarmament... what next? Government retirement annuities?

I R A Darth Aggie

Yes, but I want my harem to be recognized by the state, you polyamorousphobes!


Brendan O'Neill has an interesting piece on his blog for The Telegraph. The last bit:

What this suggests is that the gay marriage campaign is driven more by relativism than radicalism. Its fuel is trendy non-judgmentalism – "Who am I to stop anyone from getting married?" – rather than old-style civil rightsy agitation. In fact, strip away their Rosa Parks pretensions, and you will see that when a campaigner for gay marriage says, "I don't care who gets married", what he's really saying is, "I don't care about marriage". It is society's detachment from the ideal of traditional marriage, the political and media classes' sniffyness towards the virtue of commitment and the institution of the family, which nurtures the gay marriage campaign.

The late, great American social critic Christopher Lasch, writing in the 1980s, said the "liberal aristocracy" had an annoying habit of presenting general social malaise as a progressive development brought about by its own campaigning. "Progressive rhetoric has the effect of concealing social crisis and moral breakdown by presenting them 'dialectically' as the birth pangs of a new order", he said. So it is with the weird campaign for gay marriage, which is really just the demise of marriage dolled up as the birth pang of a new era of gay rights.


The left won but I am not sure who the "we" is that lost.

The people that don't think gay marriage is a good idea, whether or not you are one of them. This doesn't include all of Rush's audience but it does include a substantial part of it.

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

--The left won but I am not sure who the "we" is that lost.--

Everybody always, when the left wins.
Having said that however I think the issue is far from lost. It is only lost if the SCOTUS does the unlikely and imposes it nationally.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, trends are trends until they're not.


But the goal is radical, that is the fundamental issue,


The media is good at making it look like whatever the left wants is "inevitable." Sometimes they are right and sometimes they're wrong.

I personally am against whatever the left is for, as a general rule.


Redefine everything-today's weekly standard has a video of a Planned arenthood official arguing for "post-birth abortion". Just wipe out the term infanticide and it'll all be okay.

Oh, and it appears Obamacare which will not cover dental care will cover sex change operations. Won't we be happy paying for these expensive operations for illegals who just cross over our borderes.

Annoying Old Guy

Who lost? Anyone who wants to be left alone to live their own lives and beliefs. Nothing has aggravated me more about this debate than the pro-same sex marriage claim of "we just want to live our own way". But when you ask you find out legalizing same sex marriage is just an excuse for mass "re-education" to make people change their attitudes, activities, and beliefs to suit the activists preferences. It's not "live and let live", it's "let me live the way I want while every one else is revolved around me".


We = polygamists?


'homophobic hyper-macho young men already disinclined to marry the young women they are impregnating will be even less inclined if marriage is re-branded as a "gay thing".'

Sheesh male bash much?

If young heterosexual men find "NewMarriage" unappealing from being refurbished, rebranded, modernized, and sterilized by the DMV/EEOC to remove all taint of heterosexual bigotry ... well that's just too bad. They probably wouldn't have wanted to get married under the oldfashioned version anyway.

Still if the concern is for the health of the institution (rather than difficult to prove harm to opposite sex couples), and the stats show decline ... then dismissive mockery and blame the homophobes is probably the way to go.

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

Homophobia itself is a masterful misuse of what is a rather questionable word to begin with.
A phobia of course is an irrational fear of something. Very few people are afraid, whether a rational or irrational fear, of homosexuals. And the actual definition that has been applied to the word is hate of homosexuals.
The vast majority of "homophobes" are in fact people with a very rational concern that normalizing homosexuality is corrosive to a healthy society, but the left, as always, prefers invective to debating ideas since their ideas are DOA in an actual debate.


Truthfully, I think the loss is that a status may given to a group that was simply unsatisfied with their birth circumstance. They lost the battle trying to prove that genetics are the cause of their condition.

When I was sixteen, old enough to drive, I was unsatisfied with my age circumstance that disallowed my consumption of mass quantities of alcohol. I felt like a 21 year old, I cussed like a
21 year old, but I was treated with disdain by 21 year olds. I was hurt. I had to keep my drinking behind closed doors. Thankfully my bedroom activities were my businesses. They checked my genetics and found nothing wrong, they checked my environment and found it to be quite normal, but finally I found the right therapist. He concluded that I had a suppressed condition that society frowned upon. Other 16 year olds teased me when I tried to tell them that I was the same as them, but different. Oh how I hoped the day would come when science would prove to them that this was out of my control. That day never happened so I decided to change the hurtful legal language that was designed to make me different. No longer will "drinking age" and "age of majority" ever disenfranchise a group of people again!


--"But pandering to homophobes is a pretty weak foundation for social policy, and perhaps the broad change in attitude will sweep that away."--

How about pandering to the people that are against laziness? Until a "gay gene" is discovered, how is butt piracy anything more than moral laziness?


Achmed was distraught. :-(

He was born in Iran. His parents were also born Iran. In fact everybody on both sides of his family for their entire genealogy had never been outside the Middle East.

But poor Achmed had strange feelings. He talked to his mother, and she beat him. He talked to his father, and he cut off two of Achmed's fingers. Achmed was being discriminated against.

What was Achmed's affliction?

He had always felt as though he was a US citizen born in an Iranian body...


I think the SC will surprise many people and not in the way they would like it to happen.

Danube of Thought on iPad

"Religious disapproval doesn't qualify in our secular state; moral disapproval was cast aside with Lawrence v. Texas."

How about if we just say, "we decline to accept same-sex marriage for the same reasons that India, Japan and China, in all their accumulated, ancient and non-dead-white-guy wisdom do?" How could the left object?

Danube of Thought on iPad

I think under time-honored maxims of construction "homophobia" would mean "irrational fear of one's own kind." but that war was over when the first shot was fired.

Jack is Back!

This was all taken out of complete context. Even Rush had to chortle at how the left, the media and even conservatives missed the context which was he was only reading a Washington Times article about 2 GOP consultants (is that something to which Ace aspires?) saying the Republicans should just accept same-sex marriage to get the issue off the table. Sure, lets do the same on immigration, wealth distribution, the war on women, the war on terror, taxes, debt ceilings etc.

But he certainly was beaming in his new celebrity status as one who was accepting the inevitable - which was how everyone got his remarks completely wrong - like they always do.

Gay Only School Must Admit Straights Liberty Counsel, July 6, 2006

New York, New York – Liberty Counsel has settled the lawsuit it filed on behalf of State Senator Ruben Diaz and parents of public schools students against the New York City Department of Education (DOE) over a school billed as the first “gay high school” in the nation. Liberty Counsel filed suit soon after the City’s July 2003 announcement that Harvey Milk High School would become a publicly-funded school, and would continue to admit only “gay, lesbian, bisexual, or questioning” youth. The school was originally governed by the Hetrick-Martin Institute (HMI) a private pro-homosexual organization. Liberty Counsel’s suit challenged the legality of funding a “gay-only” high school with tax dollars.

As part of the settlement, school administrators and HMI admit that they cannot discriminate in admissions, or otherwise, against heterosexual students. The City also agreed to train the staff responsible for placement of students in Harvey Milk consistent with the DOE’s nondiscrimination policy and to represent in DOE materials that the school is open to all students.

Not good enough, if you ask me. The proper ruling would have been to redefine homosexual as "someone who is attracted to someone of the same sex while not excluding someone who is attracted to someone of the opposite sex."

Redefining the terminology of the gay culture is only fair. I find LGBT to be exclusive language designed to discriminate.

Ruth H

I find it very interesting that in an age where 54% of babies are born to unwed mothers; there are so many heterosexuals who live together without benefit of marriage; and those who do marry are so very apt to divorce, that homosexuals suddenly are campaigning for the right to marry. It's hard to see how beneficial it will be based on the statistics on marriage. We live in a weird, weird world.


"Religious disapproval doesn't qualify in our secular state" Really!!. Thanks Tom for telling me that my religious beliefs don't count.They rule my life. I obey the laws of this country and its constitution but as a Christian the Bible comes first.
You are right that i should not legislate my religious belief on you and i am not doing so.By the same token don't you legislate your belief on me. Your belief is that homosexuality is not a sin and that two people living in sin can be legitimized as a marriage. Well i respectfully disagree and when asked to vote yes or no i will vote no.


According to this recent Science story, pretty soon we are going to have children being born who will be the products of 3 parents, and containing the passed on DNA of a father and 2 mothers:

Britain ponders 'three-person embryos' to combat genetic diseases
If given green light, British scientists would be the first to offer treatments letting babies be born with DNA from three people

One mother would supply the majority of the DNA, the second mother the mitochondrial DNA, and the dad supplying his standard DNA.

Once that genetic genie is out of the bottle, I wonder if it is going to be tough for a court to rule against one of the biological parents of a child being allowed to marry the other 2 biological parents, if the 3rd parent so wished?

Or have I been reading too much SciFi?


I am fascinated by the whole debate about same sex marriage.

Marriage regularizes property/inheritance rights. Who are my heirs? Illegitimacy conveyed no property rights until relatively recently. Modern property rights are regulated by state and federal law and marriage conveys a significant advantage. Why deny it to gays?

Divorce – never traditionally favored. Still a sin to Catholics? What is the difference between polygamy and serial monogamy?

Religion – marriage predates Christianity and exists without it. How is religion relevant?

Romantic love - recent phenomenon – not a reason for marriage until recently – why deny it to gays?


Nobody is denying men the right to be pregnant. In order for society to give men the right to be called pregnant all that's necessary is to change the meaning of the word "pregnant" to something men can be, in which case we lose the existing word for a woman with child.

Nobody is denying same sex couples the right to be "married". Where married is defined as one man one woman they can be "married" when one of them goes transgender. In order for society to give same sex couples the right to be called married all that's necessary is to change the meaning of the word "married" to something like the definition of civil union. In which case we lose the word for the kind of nuclear family where any children are raised by their own natural parents.

Literature through the ages and culture and law have made it clear people believe children want to be raised by their own natural parents and people believe that's what's best for them.

Legit studies on children of single parents and step parents indicate those are not what's best for them.

Nobody here advocates for banning single parents, step parents or gay parents but it is a good enough reason for natural parenthood to have its own word.

Since what you really want is the definition for civil union, why not just use the term "civil union" and leave the meaning of the word marriage alone.

The comments to this entry are closed.