Ex-McCain aide to call for gay marriage support [Steve Schmidt] [says is a God-given right]

CNN - Political Ticker ^ | 2009-04-16

[rabscuttle385]

Washington (CNN) - Steve Schmidt, a key architect of John McCain's presidential campaign, is making his first public return to Washington a bold one.

Schmidt will use a speech Friday to Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, to urge conservative Republicans to drop their opposition to same-sex marriage, CNN has learned.

"There is a sound conservative argument to be made for same-sex marriage," Schmidt will say, according to speech excerpts obtained by CNN. "I believe conservatives, more than liberals, insist that rights come with responsibilities. No other exercise of one's liberty comes with greater responsibilities than marriage."

[MoreGovLess]

I thought I was on a site where people favor small government as a matter of principle: I guess some members only like liberty when it is “freedom for people like me” and tyranny for “people not like me.”

[manc]

you sound like a broken record, by the way a record plays music.

All this about small Govt crap you keep harping on about.
You think we should have no laws, no drug law, no homo law, no gambling law bla bla.
You can’t even understand that we need certain laws, yes we need them , This is not 1546 .
Ask yourself this seeing as you keep harping on about small Govt would the founding fathers wanted two of the same sex to marry

No they would not I BET
NO they would have been repulsed by two of the same sex having sex with each other
you can’t understand the difference between blacks marrying whites and two of the same sex doing it

still I’m trying to debate a guy who voted for a man who thinks we should not have the FBI,CIA , I guess I need checking

[manc]

you know what thought did don’t you???????????

[gidget7]

Wrong, basic freedoms, ie: rights, exist because of God! That is what inalienable and means!

Where are all these smokers, drinkers, fat people, or any of the other “groups” you mentioned, who are demanding some special right be bestowed on them? I must of missed those reports.

For that matter, where are the lawsuits by adulterers, divorcees, sex outside marriage proponents, who wish “special rights” be bestowed on them or demands for acceptance of their behavior by churches? I must have missed them too.

This issue, marriage, IS NOT ABOUT discrimination. You cannot discriminate on something that has never been in the first place. NO ONE here or anywhere else, on this issue, is suggesting or would suggest, discrimination in hiring for any position any person is qualified for. Qualified being the operative word, and qualifications should be solely up to the business in question. Affirmative action for homosexuals is NOT constitutional, however!

And refrain from using the word “ban” NO ONE has banned homosexuals from anything, although attempts have been made to ban public sex acts by homosexuals the same as is illegal by heterosexuals, without success in most cases I might add. Can we say “special rights”?

If your objective here, is victory in some debate on this issue, is your goal here, save your breath, your time, and your fingers, you will not sway any minds here, and you will not win any debate. There is no debate.

[steve-b]

Sounds like a pretty good synopsis of basic conservative ideology to me.

[steve-b]

The standard rationalization in prisons and such is that only the “catcher” is gay; the “pitcher” isn’t.

[Antoninus]

God-given right, eh?

Is it any wonder our side keeps losing when we have tools like this guy running our campaigns.

[tflabo]

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination"--Leviticus 18:22

I guess God didn't get the memo on Gay Rights demands!

[little jeremiah]

Another bong hitting liberaltarian, then.

Just a rhetorial question, I wonder what you think of Edmond Burke, then. I guess a nanny stater old fogey.

A nation without morals turns into anarchy and mayhem, with people shortly clamoring for relief from the mayhem, which leads to an iron fist government.

It’s quite simple.

The less personal restraint, the more outside is eventually “needed”. As many of the founding fathers noted, this government works only with a moral and virtuous citiznery. With citizens acting like beasts of the field (no insult to animals intended), there will be government intervention. THe kind none of us like or want.

Example: With out of wedlock births now around 40% in the US (and just a few years ago it was 30%, and among blacks its’ around 80%), children grow up into feral animals. Obviously not all, but many. So, who will keep these feral humans clothed, fed, educated and so on? Who will pay for the prisons to hold them? Who will protect the citizens from them?

A braindead liberaltarian (but I repeat myself) would say - well, let them die, let homeowners and business owners protect themselves, etc. No need for prisons, people will “take care” of them. In a few years the problem will solve itself.

So, you want mayhem and blood on the streets with citizens taking the law into their own hands. Or something.

Basically, you liberaltarians have slogans, catch phrases, and nothing more. Nothing.

Now, in my case, I do have ideas which I have repeatedly stated here on FR - about the drug situation, the prison situaiton, etc. But liberaltarians don’t like them because liberaltarians have the mentality of 12 year old boys who read comic books and think that the comic books are real life.

[little jeremiah]

Addendum: Liberaltarianism is another bogus utopian world view. Sort of the inverse of communism and socialism, a photo negative.

[longtermmemmory]

what are you talking about.

otherwise hetersexual males obtaining sexual relief in prisons is well documented. Just as return to normal sexual behavior outside of prison is also documented.

It just demonstrates that it is a behavior.

The issue here is mccain was surrounded by pro-homosexual marriage nutjobs. McCain himself gave a vanity fair interview where he specifically stated he does not care about the subject or if homosexuals married.

The left is using homosexuals as a weapon of deviance to attack marriage. The issue is that homosexuals WANT the one rape rule in order to count the prison population in order to inflate their 1-2% population number (per lawrence briefs at the USSC)

[steve-b]

A braindead liberaltarian (but I repeat myself) would say - well, let them die, let homeowners and business owners protect themselves

Ah, in your worldview one must be "braindead" to support Second Amendment rights. That explains much.

[steve-b]

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

[MoreGovLess]

Would the founding fathers have approved of interracial marriage? No, I’d bet

[MoreGovLess]

I’m not sure I understand. Are you for affirmative action at all (for women, blacks), just not gays? It’s hard to tell from your post

[little jeremiah]

You can’t understand simple statements, can you. Of course I support the right to bear arms, I practice that myself. What I meant is that if the utopian hell of liberaltarianism were actually put into play, the streets would be a mayhem of wildass shooutouts.

I don’t get your Ronald Reagan thing - you think he would have approved of the “gay” agenda? Of course not.

[little jeremiah]

Your bullshit of comparing race - which one is born with, and is neutral - with behavior, which is voluntary and maignant - is disgusting and offensive to black people or anyother “interracial” people you’re talking about.

I have friends of various races who deem such comparisons highly offensive.

[little jeremiah]

Very interesting.

[gidget7]

No. While there may have been SOME good that came of it initially, it’s time has passed. Affirmative action for ANY group should not be used. Any business should be free to select the best qualified candidate for any position and be free to place their own policies regarding qualification. Same goes for Colleges. Anything else leads only to quotas which don’t work.

[manc]

you really do fail to see the difference between blacks and whites getting married and two of the same sex

I think those drugs you take have really damaged your brain

one of that one couple can reproduce

and another couple can’t
I’LL let yo to try and figure which couple is which