Several years ago when Ohioans voted to ban gay marriage, I pointed out that ballot issues don’t pass with a 67% majority without support from all sides of the political spectrum. Nonsense, I was told. The religious kooks who infest Ohio turned out in massive numbers to let those nasty gay people have it. (Non-religious non-kooks, apparently, didn’t vote on the issue.) It was just more proof that the fanatical religious nut jobs in Ohio were taking over and who knows what kind of hurt the gay community was in for. I maintained, and still maintain, my assertion as stated at the beginning of this paragraph.
In the intervening time, state government has been turned over to the Democrats. Ohio voted overwhelmingly for the Democrat Presidential candidate, because, you know, that’s what religious kooks do, right? They vote for Democrats.
This election cycle, in very liberal California, their gay marriage ban passed with 52%. One of the most liberal states in the nation passed a gay marriage ban with a decent margin of victory. Despite all the talk of the more feeling, more caring, more sensitive, more concerned, morally superior left, gay people still get the sharp end of the stick in their utopias-in-the-making. (Massachusetts included.) There must have been significant support from the left to pass the ban.
The fact is this, gay people: Neither party is your friend. As much as you irrationally cling to the Democrat party, as much as you whirl yourselves into irrational fear of religion and its practitioners, the real instrument that’s being used to suppress you is big government. Personal freedom, the right to make choices about your own situation and circumstances, the lack of interference from others in your personal relationships, life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness… these are all small government conservative values! Conservative values are gay values!
Many of the gay people I know preoccupy themselves with the perceived evil of religion, complaining that religious ideologies are what hold them back. That is complete nonsense. Religious voters want to use the same weapon against you that liberals, who can’t stomach one of your most basic rights, to marry, want to use against you: big government. Instead of concentrating on emotion-based arguments against faith (and they are emotion based, because reason is useless against the unreasonable impenetrable walls of emotion and faith), concentrate on disarming the faithful who attack you from the front, and the false friends who stab you in the back.
My .Mac Web Gallery
Loading ...
November 5th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Either party could be the party of a gay person if there was more to their existence than their sexuality and marital status. For most gay people, this means that they can find a home with either party depending on their opinions about the same issues that everyone else is concerned about.
November 5th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Marriage is about more than a ring. Marriage determines inheritance and control of my property when I’m dead or incapacitated. Marriage determines who will be legally authorized to make medical decisions for me during a time when I need compassion and thought. Marriage means the protection of spousal privilege when I’m entitled to a defense. Marriage means a simple recognition of the right of consenting adults to arrange their lives in a way that threatens no other citizen’s right to life, liberty, or property. Marriage is an umbrella issue that encompasses several aspects of what it means to be a free, responsible adult, rather than a ward of the state. Only small government is compatible with that liberty.
Sexuality is how this particular group of people is defined. Whether gay people are permitted their sexual behavior isn’t an issue (yet). Sexuality is the basis upon which the right to marry is denied. There is more to the life of homosexuals, obviously, but marriage seems to be the vector of attack for those who wish to socially engineer our society, from whichever side they may be. Taking away their power, the point of government’s gun, is the only way to secure a society of equal opportunity.
November 5th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
I believe that gays should have the same right to misery and financial ruin that straight people enjoy… let them marry too!
I also believe that marriage is a social agreement between two people, and the government should have NOTHING to do with it. Not defining it, not sanctioning it, not officiating it, not presiding over its confluence or dissolution. It should carry no status whatsoever in government, taxes, elections, etc.
How’s that for a radical viewpoint?
–chuck
November 5th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
1) While no political party may be our friend, I still have to completely disagree with you about the religious kooks. The evangelical pastors and ministers of the giant mega-churches high-tailed it to CA to push their herd of sheep-minded congregations out to vote against it. I’m not saying that there aren’t liberals out there that dislike gay people just as much as the religious kooks. The difference is (in my experience) the liberals, while disliking the gays, manage to say “eh, they’re still humans and still should have the same rights as everyone else.”
Also (in my experience) you have not suffered anywhere NEAR the damaging effects of the religious kooks that some of us have, very very personally.
2) In defense of any future posts regarding “civil unions”… a civil union would NOT EVER be the same as “marriage.” In a civil union, if Aaron dies and some long lost cousin finds out that he just happened to have a nice house here in Bellbrook, I would promptly find myself out on my ass in the street. In a marriage that would not be the case, as I would have inheritance rights.
3) Marriage, in its entirety, should be completely and utterly separate if not eradicated from any involvement with the government at all. Marriage is a religious concept. Let the religious kooks have it. THEN we can put in place whatever sort of civil system in place that needs to occur to allow those that want to file taxes together or have inheritance rights etc etc. Remember: you can go to the church and get married, but you still have to go the court to file the paperwork; but you can go to the court and file the paperwork without ever having to go to the church.
4) It’s very very easy for someone to say “either party could be their friend if their was more to their existence than their sexuality and marital” when that person doesn’t have to WORRY about their sexuality or whether they can get married. And as an aside, just so you’re aware, there is quiet a bit more to my life than my sexuality and marital status… I’m an avid gardner, I have my two beagles, I’m an amateur chef… get the point?
5) Sexuality is how this group of people are defined by other people.
6) Relax Rush Jr… I’m not for big government either, but you’re bordering on that whole conspiracy thing. Big government is no more the answer to all the world’s misery than religion is. Both are in the top ten, but they’re not the bottom-line factor.
November 5th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Chuck,
I believe the government should grant civil unions to couples both straight and gay, and marriages should be the realm of the church. The force of law is needed to secure roles and responsibilities I named above, such as inheritance, power of attorney or conservatorship, legal protections in court, etc.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Josh,
How did they vote in California without being registered voters in that state? The point of voter registration is to prevent such a thing. And surely the number of people coming in from out of state must be miniscule to California’s overall voting population.
Or do you mean that the ministers went to California to get Californians to vote against it? If that were true, and turnout were enough to influence the outcome of this particular issue, wouldn’t California have ended up in McCain’s column rather than Obama’s?
That’s not liberalism. Liberalism is, “The government needs to make a law to enforce my personal preference for this issue.” Conservatism is the assumption that people have the same rights without the interference of government.
I, rightfully, define conservative and liberal relative to the application of government power. Minimal application of government power is conservative. Maximal application of government power is liberal.
Correct, because I refuse to allow those people to have that kind of control over me.
Correct. We rejected Jim Crow in this country more than 40 years ago.
Nothing to worry about.
Housekeeper? And where are the pumpkin muffins I was promised a week ago?
Rush would never defend gay marriage, must less apply the logic of conservatism to do it.
Big government is not a conspiracy because it’s not hidden. I don’t claim that eliminating big government is a cure-all, but it’s one hell of a giant step. It is the club both sides use to beat you, and taking it away from them only benefits you. Again, faith and emotion cannot be reasoned with, so the strategy needs to be to disarm those who are unreasonable. The question in your mind whenever you go to the polls to consider a candidate or an issue should be, does this vote increase my personal liberties, or does it increase governments power over my life?
I do not censor dissenting posts, ask that they be changed, or remove them. I respond to them. Please make a note of it.
November 6th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Or do you mean that the ministers went to California to get Californians to vote against it? If that were true, and turnout were enough to influence the outcome of this particular issue, wouldn’t California have ended up in McCain’s column rather than Obama’s?
Yes, the ministers went to CA to rally their congregations. My only explanation as to why they voted for Obama but against the gay marriages is that the Latin community is HUGE in CA and is also primarily of Catholic faith. That thinking allows them to be for Obama but against gay marriage. No, it isn’t my final answer, it’s my theory.
Regardless, whether you choose to believe it or not, the evangelicals went there and they obviously made a difference. You may refuse to see the obvious influence of religions but they truly are there.
That’s not liberalism. Liberalism is, “The government needs to make a law to enforce my personal preference for this issue.” Conservatism is the assumption that people have the same rights without the interference of government.
I, rightfully, define conservative and liberal relative to the application of government power. Minimal application of government power is conservative. Maximal application of government power is liberal.
New Oxford American Dictionary
Lib*er*al
adjective
1) open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional views
*favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms
* (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform
Con*serv*a*tive
adjective or noun
1) holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
So, by definition, liberal means favorable to and/or respectful of individual freedoms. Semantics? Yes. Any less relevant because of it? No.
“Also (in my experience) you have not suffered anywhere NEAR the damaging effects of the religious kooks that some of us have, very very personally.”
Correct, because I refuse to allow those people to have that kind of control over me.
You misunderstand my point… I’m not talking about the damaging effects NOW. I’m talking about the damaging effects we were raised, constricted and repressed under from birth until the point we managed to actually look at and reflect on the hypocrisy of the situation.
I’m not allowing those people to have control over me now any more than you are. The fact remains however that their beliefs seep into and strangle a great many of our individual rights. (i.e. You can’t by liquor on Sundays; Gambling is still illegal in the majority of states; etc etc etc)
“In a civil union, if Aaron dies and some long lost cousin finds out that he just happened to have” Nothing to worry about.
Maybe not for me, but you should be VERY concerned. I have truckloads of cousins, not to mention aunts and uncles and so forth.
Housekeeper? And where are the pumpkin muffins I was promised a week ago?
Housekeeping doesn’t just mean cleaning. It also involves decor and such, and I think I’m pretty good at that. Not HGTV good, but still better than most.
The pumpkin muffins are on the counter. Try not to let them go bad like the pumpkin pie did.
Rush would never defend gay marriage, must less apply the logic of conservatism to do it.
Which is yet another reason I just cannot understand why you’d support The Ass.
Conservative: see definitions applied above.
Big government is not a conspiracy because it’s not hidden. I don’t claim that eliminating big government is a cure-all, but it’s one hell of a giant step.
I never said it was a conspiracy. I DID and always will say that eliminating religious fervor and power is just as equal of a giant step as eliminating big government. Neither will ever happen while we’re still alive though.
Again, faith and emotion cannot be reasoned with, so the strategy needs to be to disarm those who are unreasonable. The question in your mind whenever you go to the polls to consider a candidate or an issue should be, does this vote increase my personal liberties, or does it increase governments power over my life?
Disarming the unreasonable… yea, well good luck. I’ve been trying different tactics for that for years.
And why can we not go into the polls to consider BOTH issues? How will this increase or decrease government control AND how will this help quash religious ideology that both helps government control over my individual rights as well as takes away things that I like to do that religious persons don’t (gay marriage, drinking on Sunday, etc etc etc)?
I do not censor dissenting posts, ask that they be changed, or remove them. I respond to them. Please make a note of it.
I didn’t say you did, and I’m assuming you’re saying that for the benefit of anyone that may want to post a dissenting remark. I truly hope you aren’t referring to the post you put on my site that I wouldn’t allow. I told you all you had to do with that one was remove The Ass’ website from your header information and it would be posted. My website isn’t a democracy, republic, or anything of the sort. It’s pure dictatorial monarchy and I’m sitting on the throne.
I DO censor or remove things from my site.
November 6th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Here’s something new I’ve learned: 70% of black voters supported the gay marriage ban, and that particular demographic is being credited for passing the issue. Do you think those persons were Republican voters, or Democrat voters?
November 6th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Without knowing the breakdown, I’d certainly bet money that they were all devout Christian voters, regardless of party affiliation.
November 6th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
The Latin community may be huge, but how many of them are legal, how many of them are registered to vote, how many are able to take time from their under-the-table menial jobs to go to the polls to cast a vote? Why would Catholic voters support a man who voted in Illinois to allow the killing of mis-aborted babies after they’re out of the womb? That’s all very contradictory. The simpler, and more likely explanation is, straight people of all political affiliations in California (and other states) oppose gay marriage.
I can pick and choose definitions too…
liberal
4 given, used, or occurring in generous amounts
conservative
purposely low for the sake of caution
If you could be troubled to read the Constitution, the ultimate instrument of governance in our nation, it defines what government’s powers are, it limits government. When we elect persons to office or decide issues with our vote, we’re giving government instructions for what to do on our behalf. Instructing government to behave conservatively, as defined above, is the only choice compatible with personal freedom.
semantics
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning
Yes, this is semantics! Words mean things, and we use them to form ideas, which often times cause us to act. If the idea is not clearly articulated, it is not effectively communicated or understood, and no action takes place.
I don’t think there’s anyone reading this who can’t post a sob story (or ten) here about something damaging that happened to them when they were a kid. That’s the past. It’s time to live in the present. At some point you have to progress and grow.
All beliefs that are enforced, according to your example, by government action! Take away their ability to enforce those beliefs. You’re not going to take away their belief(s), so take away their weapon.
Without posting too much of our financial business in this public place, I’ll say that I have nothing to worry about as well.
I’ve stated this before, and I don’t mind restating it: I don’t agree with everything Rush says, although I do agree with a good deal of it. When I disagree with him, I listen because he is good at articulating why he believes what he believes, which helps me articulate why I disagree. In fact, this whole discussion comes from that process. I disagree with him about this issue, and hearing his clear thoughts have helped me better state why I disagree.
Their power comes from their ability to act through government, and their fervor increases the more powerful they become. Remove their ability to affect you, and you dampen their enthusiasm.
Except conservatism, apparently.
You’ve created a kind of logical feedback loop here, for which I will refer back to my answers of previous questions rather than repeat myself.
I am referring to exactly that.
And that’s exactly why a discussion such as this could never happen at your site. I, for one, will not post there knowing that I may be totally wasting my time because whatever mood you may be in, or whatever unknown, forbidden thing I may include in my post may disqualify it from publication. Lack of an option to react precludes any inclination to read. If you’re confident enough to post your opinions, you should, as a matter of principle, be prepared to defend them to the very people you ask to read them.
November 6th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
1 point of correction marriage does not solely determine inheritance. If you have a will you can leave everyting to your dog, however; if you do not have a will the estate goes thru what in Ohio is called the Statute of Descent and Distribution, in which there is a graph in which your estate is handed down throughout your family lineage.
As for gay marriage, I say way not, it will then put these couples on the same footing as hetro-couples. I.E with health care benefits and payments, welfare benefits, SSI benefits, mortgage applications, taxes, etc., etc., etc.
November 6th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
I would like to add that Mr. Wiesemann is a paralegal.
Does your spouse not have first claim to your inheritance, if you don’t specify otherwise?
November 6th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
I am Paralegal graduate, but unemployed in that field. Yes, in Decent and Distrubution, it is spouse 1st, children 2nd, parents 3rd, siblings 4th, grandparents 5th, then there are 7 more before it is defaulted to the state. Right before the state is step-children, just goes to show the old saying is true “beat you like a red headed step-child.”, when they are the last line before the state.
November 6th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Ohio also has a clause were the spouse cannot be written out of a will. So if Rich guy dies and leaves everything to girlfirend, wife can contest will and get a pro-rated distrubution of the estate. More if there were children involved with the marriage.