Posted on 02/27/2015 5:27:36 PM PST by ConservativeTeen
Few things make me shudder quite like hearing someone use the phrase "traditional marriage" unironically.
— Katherine Timpf (@KatTimpf) February 27, 2015
This is one of those tiny but telling things. Katherine Timpf is a reporter for National Review Online. She’s a Millennial, a Hillsdale grad, and has published lots of things in right-of-center publications. And she’s a libertarian.
One is not at all surprised to find libertarians, especially libertarians in their twenties, supporting same-sex marriage. Nor is one surprised to find libertarians working at National Review. What I find startling, but a sign of the times, is that a National Review writer not only doesn’t support traditional marriage, but finds the term and concept viscerally disgusting.
A small thing, but a big thing too.
History is running right over the people standing athwart it yelling, “Stop!”
? Well what did she MEAN by that?
Honestly, can we stop making major statements out of TWEETS every time someone engages?
What does this girl mean when she says that? Is there a body of work to back up her sentiments?
One of the biggest problems with the left is that they take one statement and twist it out of context and not allow it to take be blended in with what a person’s entire body of work has been about....
Kind of like taking a verse in the Bible and taking it out of context.
So, what did the NRO writer MEAN when she said that?!
I ditched it (NR) about 1989 ... it had become a haven for lunatics.
Basically she’s saying that she hates anyone who is not homosexual.
I don’t like the term “traditional marriage” either.
It implies that there are different “kinds” of marriage. There’s only one “kind” of marriage — not traditional, not natural, not heterosexual. There’s only “marriage,” the way the Creator conceived it.
Ha! We both had the same idea. You beat me by a few minutes ... :-)
Too many youngster confuse being a libertarian with being a libertine.
That’s not a bad approach. A true libertarian would be pushing for the eradication of not only government-sanctioned marriage, but even the idea of civil unions as you describe them. Under libertarian principles, there’s no reason under the sun for two people in a “civil union” to be treated any differently under the law than two individuals who have no relationship whatsoever.
I think National Review has defended Traditional Marriage quite a bit.
I’d look to see how many articles that are pro-traditional marriage versus others they have published. Hopefully, any kinds of others are rare.
That’s not excusing any of this behavior though.
Definitely the winner of this week’s Marie Harf award.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review
National Review (N.R.) is a semimonthly magazine founded by author William F. Buckley, Jr., in 1955 and based in New York City. It describes itself as “America’s most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion.”
National Review promoted Barry Goldwater heavily during the early 1960s. Buckley and others involved with the magazine took a major role in the “Draft Goldwater” movement in 1960 and the 1964 presidential campaign. National Review spread his vision of conservatism throughout the country.
After Goldwater was defeated by Lyndon Johnson in 1964, Buckley and National Review continued to champion the idea of a conservative movement, which was increasingly embodied in Ronald Reagan. Reagan, a longtime subscriber to National Review, first became politically prominent during Goldwater’s campaign. National Review supported his challenge to President Gerald Ford in 1976 and his successful 1980 campaign.
During the 1980s N.R. called for tax cuts, supply-side economics, the Strategic Defense Initiative, and support for President Reagan’s foreign policy against the Soviet Union. The magazine criticized the Welfare state and would support the Welfare reform proposals of the 1990s. The magazine also regularly criticized President Bill Clinton. It first embraced, then rejected, Pat Buchanan in his political campaigns. A lengthy 1996 National Review editorial called for a “movement toward” drug legalization.
Markos Moulitsas, who runs the liberal Daily Kos web-site, told reporters in August 2007 that he does not read conservative blogs, with the exception of those on N.R.O.: “I do like the blogs at the National Review—I do think their writers are the best in the [conservative] blogosphere,” he said.
National Review Circulation
1988: 120,420
1994: 269,512
2000: 146,554
2010: 203,085 *1
2011:
2012: 166,755 *2
2013:
2014: 141,577 *3
*1 http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2011/magazines-essay/data-page-4/
*2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review
*3 http://abcas3.auditedmedia.com/ecirc/magtitlesearch.asp
Full data set to 2010: http://www.stateofthemedia.org/files/2011/01/23-mags-Data-Opinion-Magazine-Circulation.xlsx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Republic
The New Republic is a liberal American magazine of commentary on politics and the arts published since 1914, with major influence on American political and cultural thinking. Founded in 1914 by major leaders of the Progressive Movement it attempted to find a balance between a Progressivism focused on humanitarianism and moral passion, and on the other hand sought a basis in scientific analysis of social issues.
National Review described it as “one of the most interesting magazines in the United States.”[13] Alterman, Eric (June 18, 2007)
Not Guilty!
Wow, libertarian speech and doublespeak mandating.
I met a libertarian and she kept saying how she would never have children. It is amazing how people disqualify themselves that way.
May she be assaulted in an alley by the urban barbarians along with all other socially “tolerant” millennialls in gentrified urban neighborhoods.
National Review, which decided that Nelson Mandela - terrorist - was a saint with more moral authority than anyone on Earth, now sinks ever further.
It seems to be a “thing” for pretty young blonde ditzes to wear these big black rimmed eyeglasses, as if that makes them “look smart.” Have they not noticed that Megyn Kelly gets away without wearing big glasses? Maybe ‘cause she really IS smart?
In the Plymouth Colony (puritans, you know) marriage was a civil thing, not a religious thing.
Here’s a Doctor Who minisode (about 7.5 minutes long) with the applicable line spoken by the 10th Doctor to the 5th.
“OH! And out they come, the brainy specs! You don’t really need them, you just think they make you look really clever!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9nC0H1jMbc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.