Today’s main electoral events: IN & NC
[Posted by Karl]
With the GOP presidential nomination a near-certainty for Mitt Romney, today’s big elections concern the fates of US Sen. Dick Lugar in Indiana and same-sex marriage in North Carolina.
Taking the latter first, Gallup reports 50% of Americans are in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage (down marginally from last year’s 53%). However, the latest PPP poll suggests a SSM ban will pass, with only 39% opposing the idea. Although I tend to doubt Obama will win North Carolina in November, he undoubtedly would like to keep it in the mix of battleground states where the GOP has to spend money. Accordingly, while much will be made of the fact that SSM is backed by Democrats and Indies but largely opposed by Republicans, White House flack Jay Carney spent yesterday looking like a Dancing With The Stars contestant regarding Pres. Obama’s stated opposition to SSM.
Turning to the Indiana primary, where recent polling suggests the incumbent Lugar may get knocked off by state treasurer Richard Mourdock, I found the defense of Lugar by Peggy Noonan highly instructive, although not for the reasons she hoped:
What Washington needs is sober and responsible adults. We are as a nation in a moment of real peril, facing challenges that are going to become existential—maybe already are—if we don’t do something about them. We won’t be able to ignore them—an unsound tax system, increasing and highly ideological regulation, an entitlement system whose demands will crush our children—for long. So right now, and more than ever, we need mature folk involved in our governance, people for whom not everything is new. People who know how to do things, who began studying a complicated issue 25 years ago and have kept up, who know it backward and forward. People who know the ways of the chamber backward and forward, and who know how to talk across the aisle. There is value in experience, in accomplishment and expertise. There is value in the ability to take the long view, and do your best with modesty and with an eye toward all the big jumbly categories of America, which are not limited to “rightist” and “leftist.”
The question that argument provokes is: “What exactly has Dick Lugar done about these issues that are possibly already existential?” In explaining the main reasons Lugar may lose, Noonan manages a fairly honest answer:
If Mr. Lugar loses on Tuesday it will likely be due to two things. The first is a number: 35. That’s how many years he’s been in the Senate, how many years he’s lived and worked primarily in the environs of Washington, not Indiana, where apparently he no longer has a home. That was a mistake. Thirty-five is a big number. Nonideological people might look at it and think, “It’s time for a change.”
Please mentally underscore that Lugar apparently no longer has a home in Indiana, because virtually every establishment media account of this primary notes that Mourdock’s campaign is fueled by support from “outside groups.” Dick Lugar has become an “outside Senator,” unlikely to return to Indiana should he lose. I find it difficult to summon big, salty tears over his treatment at the hands of “outside groups.”
Noonan continues:
The other reason is a fact. What fuels conservative frustration is not only legislation like ObamaCare and scandals like Solyndra, but a growing sense that for 40 years, members of the party have sent Republicans to Washington and Washington—its spending, its regulating, its demands—keeps getting worse, not better. How could this be? It’s not just that Democrats have their Democratic ways, it’s that the Republicans they’ve sent haven’t waged a good enough fight. Everything bad there happened while they were there. So—tear it all down, remove everyone and start over.
This is a hard argument to counter because there is some truth in it. No matter who you send, Washington keeps growing. But Mr. Lugar remains as what he is, exceptional, and in his case there are many factors…
In short, the answer to the question of what Lugar has done about the possibly already extential threats to the nation is: “not much.” Indeed, Noonan praises his bipartisanship, when the go-along, get-along approach has actually fueled these threats. You know who has written eloquently about this problem? Peggy Noonan:
For conservatives on the ground, it has often felt as if Democrats (and moderate Republicans) were always saying, “We should spend a trillion dollars,” and the Republican Party would respond, “No, too costly. How about $700 billion?” Conservatives on the ground are thinking, “How about nothing? How about we don’t spend more money but finally start cutting.”
***
The second thing is the clock. Here is a great virtue of the tea party: They know what time it is. It’s getting late. If we don’t get the size and cost of government in line now, we won’t be able to. We’re teetering on the brink of some vast, dark new world—states and cities on the brink of bankruptcy, the federal government too. The issue isn’t “big spending” anymore. It’s ruinous spending that they fear will end America as we know it, as they promised it to their children.
While Lugar deserves credit for his work on issues like nuclear disarmament, he has contributed to the current existential threat and until now displayed no awareness of this. Had he spent more time among Hoosiers, perhaps he would have noticed their discontent. Should he lose today, he will seek solace from his real constituents in the Beltway, who will condemn the excessive partisanship of the Tea Party movement, conveniently forgetting Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) retired in 2010 because the leftwing agenda of a Democratic Congress made getting re-elected too difficult.
–Karl
Ding!
Karl (f07e38) — 5/8/2012 @ 11:24 am“Turn out the lights, the party’s over….”
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/8/2012 @ 11:41 amPeggy and Lugar are members of he same social group, go to the same cocktail parties and think like the elites who have dragged the country to the cliff. Who did she vote for in 2008?
Mike K (326cba) — 5/8/2012 @ 12:10 pmThe main things probably that Peggy Nooonan probably likes about Lugar are things he has not done, or bills he has not opposed.
What she likes about him comes down to the fact that he is not an obstacle to other Senators trying to work things out (and also not a liberal)
Lugatr has sometimes been a member of groups of senators from both parties that aim to work out a deal. (although he wasn’t a member of the gang of 14)
This may be very important to her, and she doesn’t think a successor would be better, but rather, worse, and less likely to agree to things – which means more likely to make Washington not work.
Lugar hasn’t been active doing much of anything. Senator Lugar’s big area of interest is foreign policy, but he’s main achievement is actaully nonsense – buying up Russian nukes which were in no danger of going astray. He fell for that scam.
Lugar broke with Bush on June 25, 2007 on Iraq – after the surge had started. So it can be aregued, he’s not very prescient.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/8/2012 @ 12:31 pmDitto to what Mike K said.
Ipso Fatso (7434b9) — 5/8/2012 @ 12:34 pmIn 2006, Lugar was elected with almost no opposition. He was only opposed by the Libertarian Party candidate Steve Osborn, and got 87% of the vote in November. He has always won by big margins amd so didn’t tend to get worried. He started a dynasty of mayors of Indinapolis.
This year and last he was too nice to attack Murdock and didn’t defend his TARP vote.
Lugar and Obama were sponsers of a secure nukes bill, which was about Obama’s only achievement in the Senate.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/8/2012 @ 12:47 pmHow does it make you feel, posing your dreams as reality?
Larry Reilly (bcad39) — 5/8/2012 @ 3:12 pmAnd of course, Larry Reilly the troll can’t even articulate what it is that Karl wrote that he argues is a “dream”? The SSM ban passing in North Carolina? Its polling a pretty dramatic passage despite some ridiculous fearmongering among opponents.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/8/2012 @ 3:28 pmSPQR, you must admit that #7 is, um, just a bit ironic, given his history? What is it with the Left and projection?
Simon Jester (55d4f7) — 5/8/2012 @ 3:55 pmNo, I won’t admit “irony” where “incoherent” remains more apt in describing Larry Reilly.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/8/2012 @ 4:04 pmI’m one of the first republican friends will complain about for being too centrist, and big tent…. But even I say Lugar needs to go. Bottom line, he doesn’t represent his state anymore; too many elections that were too easy….
Alex (9b4bca) — 5/8/2012 @ 4:06 pmFinkelman,
Lugar was too nice to attack Murdock, what dream world are you living in? I’ll link just a couple of the attack ads that Lugar sponsored against Murdock just to call you out on your falsehoods.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/297498/lugar-campaign-hits-mourdock-new-radio-ad-brian-bolduc#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-1Ge-jWup20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pEtiILgdkoE#!
Need any more? There’s plenty out there. Thanks for your support.
NJRob (fe68e7) — 5/8/2012 @ 4:30 pmThis is the worst one though cause it’s attacking Mourdock for supporting Paul Ryan’s plan which Lugar voted for. What a jerk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w_l-RTcGeS0
NJRob (fe68e7) — 5/8/2012 @ 4:33 pmWell, that was fast. For Dick Lugar, Tonight’s The Night. And to borrow another line from Rod Stewart, this may have been foretold in his debate with Mourdock. Every picture tells a story, don’t it … http://bit.ly/qVdDUt
ombdz (2a81ef) — 5/8/2012 @ 4:50 pmLugar just didn’t know when to get the heck off the stage and he’s paid the humiliating price for it. It’s not even close: Mourdock is crushing him by over 20 points.
Mourdock certainly won’t win by 20 points over Donnelly next November, but the election is now Mourdock’s to lose. My money says Mourdock will be measuring Dick Lugar’s old senate office for drapes very soon. 😉
MarkJ (42fe5b) — 5/8/2012 @ 4:57 pmI’m sure Richard Lugar is a very nice and honorable man, and on balance I think he has behaved in a generally conservative manner as a senator, but I am glad he has lost if for no other reason than to establish the fact that no one — no one — should serve seven terms in the United States Senate. Dying in office of old age is something that Democrats do (Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd), not something that Republicans should aspire to.
JVW (4d72aa) — 5/8/2012 @ 5:54 pmWhen Barack Obama’s handlers were trying to repackage their candidate’s trackless, completely inconsequential record as a legislator into something they could sell on the campaign trail, the main legislative “achievement” they relied upon was Obama’s nominal co-sponsorship with Lugar of a bipartisan nuclear nonproliferation bill. Lugar’s staff wrote the entire bill; Obama contributed nothing other than accompanying Lugar on a “factfinding mission” to the Ukraine, but Lugar had invited the freshman from Illinois to be a co-sponsor of the bill anyway as a deliberate gesture of bipartisanship. The bill passed on a voice vote without a single senator going on record against it.
Lugar’s motives were old-fashioned and, from an old-fashioned perspective, honorable.
But Obama played him for a chump. Do the citizens of Indiana want to remain represented by a chump? I don’t think so.
Beldar (2a462a) — 5/8/2012 @ 6:04 pmI’m curious why I have to be a hater for not supporting gay marriage. I’m all for gay people arranging their personal lives however seems best to them. It just doesn’t occur to me to seperate marriage from procreation.
Steve (90e0d3) — 5/8/2012 @ 6:21 pmyou’re so rude, ombdz… http://youtu.be/FCzAfhGEo10
Colonel Haiku (273777) — 5/8/2012 @ 6:22 pmlOOGEY LOSES!
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 5/8/2012 @ 6:38 pmLOOGEY THAT IS
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 5/8/2012 @ 6:39 pmI grew up believing that marriage was a union of man and woman. Why change the definition? Certainly morality does not demand such a change.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 5/8/2012 @ 7:01 pmBiden dejected
Colonel Haiku (273777) — 5/8/2012 @ 7:25 pmdid not get reach-around from
voters in NC
Well played, Colonel.
Sounds like the voters of North Carolina had Carolina on their mind, rather than, uh,…Carl !
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/8/2012 @ 7:37 pmLook for the sodomists who challenge this amendment in court soon.
If they challenge in federal court, Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915 at 927-928 (1996) (en banc) forecloses any claims that sexual orientation discrimination is subject to any sort of heightened scrutiny. Furthermore, Thomasson does not even cite, let alone rely upon, Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), so it remains undisturbed by Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). By contrast, I am unaware of any North Carolina Supreme Court or Court of Appeals case that decided the level of scrutiny applicable to sexual orientation discrimination claims. If neither the Supreme Court nor the Court of Appeal determined the level of scrutiny, I would expect challengers to file in a North Carolina district court.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 5/8/2012 @ 7:42 pmI disagree with the amendment, butat least they did it the right way. If you’re going to step on people’s freedoms, at least have the balls to put it in the constitution.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/8/2012 @ 7:57 pmWith about half the votes counted, Walker is out-polling the Donks, all of ’em.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 5/8/2012 @ 8:13 pmBarack Obama thinks he can continue to vote “present”. Personally I couldn’t care less if gays wish to marry. But Obama cannot square that circle with his black and Hispanic base. He knows at some point if he fully embraces the gay marriage cause he will cut the enthusiasm of his strongest base.And he can ill-afford that. But shockingly the MSM(indifferent to $16 trillion in debt) is thus far holding his cold feet to the fire.
Bugg (ea1809) — 5/9/2012 @ 6:01 amI disagree with the amendment, butat least they did it the right way. If you’re going to step on people’s freedoms, at least have the balls to put it in the constitution.
You have to do it that way to prevent the judges from declaring it unconstitutional for the state to not accept gay marriages. Although I believe there was some constitutional amendment in CO years ago that the CO courts declared unconstitutional. In other words something in the constitution is unconstitutional according to the liberal CO justices.
This and other similar amendments don’t step on anyone’s freedoms. These amendments are about what marriages the state officially recognizes as marriage. If a church wants to marry two men or two women the police can’t show up and arrest them or something. This is not a freedom issue.
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 5/9/2012 @ 7:16 amThat was Colorado’s Amendment 2. Its defect was that it prohibited protection of homosexuals, but not heterosexuals, from sexual orientation discrimination. Had it been worded to merely prevent sexual orientation discrimination for everyone, the ultimate ruling would have used a different analysis.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 5/9/2012 @ 7:26 amI don’t think this can be said enough. I don’t support gay marriage. But then I don’t want to rip the heads off homosexual and crap down their necks, either. Be gay. Be gay all you want. Just don’t look to me for approval. That’s all I ask. Have a happy life.
Steve (90e0d3) — 5/9/2012 @ 7:29 amThe amendment also bans civil unions and domestic partnerships. It is absolutely stepping on freedom. Why you should have to ask the governments permission to get married in the first place is beyond me. But if this amendment were only about “protecting the sanctity of marriage” and not about, as I suspect it was, “not liking gay people,” the domestic partner/civil union crap wouldn’t be in there. That’s just flinging dirt in their eyes for no other reason than ha ha, there’s more of us than you. And the police may not stop them from having a fake ceremony, but if one of them goes Terri Schiavo, their partner won’t be allowed to help make the important decisions, because legally, they’re just friends.
There’s a simple solution: get the govt out of marriage. That way, a wedding isn’t a “right,” but a service provided by people who can reserve the right to refuse service. Churches wouldn’t be successfully sued, freedom of religion would remain intact, and the gay agenda could quietly take its seat and stop hooting and hollering.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/9/2012 @ 8:32 amYour simple solution may not be so simple.
I guess I have to be the one to say it, but here it is: I don’t value gay relationships.
If it shakes your peaches, floats your boat, whatever, fine.
I’m old fashioned. I want grand kids someday. Apparently I missed the high school biology class in which they lessoned us in how gay relationships produced grand kids.
If you want to just trash the idea you’re going to do your duty by your ancestors and seek your pleasure, have at it.
Steve (90e0d3) — 5/9/2012 @ 8:52 amSteve,
I don’t value Kardashian relationships. I believe they aren’t about love, only about being as dirty and depraved as possible. And last I learned in biology class, babies aren’t made by finishing on her face. So lets ban them.
You want grandkids. Awesome, I do too. I guess I gotta be the one to tell you, but allowing gay marriage won’t turn your son gay anymore than banning it will make him straight.
And honestly, no one is looking for your approval. They’re just asking you to not get in their way.
And yes, the solution is that simple. But then the state would lose money, so simple or not, I won’t hold my breath.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/9/2012 @ 9:02 amHow does it make you feel, posing your dreams as reality?
Comment by Larry Reilly — 5/8/2012 @ 3:12 pm
— Mawry, how does it feel to be on your own,
Icy (868e5e) — 5/9/2012 @ 9:04 amWith no direction home,
Like a complete unknown?
I’m one of the first republican friends will complain about for being too centrist, and big tent.
Comment by Alex — 5/8/2012 @ 4:06 pm
— Color us SHOCKA!
Icy (868e5e) — 5/9/2012 @ 9:11 amAnd of course, Larry Reilly the troll can’t even articulate what it is that Karl wrote that he argues is a “dream”?
Comment by SPQR — 5/8/2012 @ 3:28 pm
It’s a generic comment.
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 5/9/2012 @ 9:42 amComment by Ghost — 5/9/2012 @ 8:32 am
The amendment also bans civil unions and domestic partnerships. It is absolutely stepping on freedom.
— Because prior to this amendment people enjoyed that freedom?
Why you should have to ask the governments permission to get married in the first place is beyond me.
— In theory, agreed. In practice, let’s see . . .
But if this amendment were only about “protecting the sanctity of marriage” and not about, as I suspect it was, “not liking gay people,” the domestic partner/civil union crap wouldn’t be in there.
— Too bad that NC isn’t CA; if it were, then someone could take this to court and argue that the proponents of the amendment are big, meany homophobes! After all, it’s not about what the law says; the only important thing is what motivated the authors of the law. Right?
That’s just flinging dirt in their eyes for no other reason than ha ha, there’s more of us than you.
— The majority oppressing the minority; just like slavery, is it?
And the police may not stop them from having a fake ceremony
— Where he heck did that ^^^ come from? What do you envision? Sheriff Bubba comin’ ’round a-sayin’ “Hey you queers, y’all stop domestic partnerin’ now, ya hear?”
but if one of them goes Terri Schiavo, their partner won’t be allowed to help make the important decisions, because legally, they’re just friends.
— Gee, there must be some way to get around that restriction. I wonder if there are any lawyer types around here that can come up with something . . . something with a catchy title . . . like “Living Will” or something else along those lines.
There’s a simple solution: get the govt out of marriage. That way, a wedding isn’t a “right,” but a service provided by people who can reserve the right to refuse service.
— Again, that’s all good UNTIL you start looking for special consideration from the government.
Churches wouldn’t be successfully sued, freedom of religion would remain intact, and the gay agenda could quietly take its seat and stop hooting and hollering.
Icy (868e5e) — 5/9/2012 @ 10:47 am— There is a church somewhere in America that has been successfully sued for refusing to perform a gay marriage ceremony? WHERE?
Sorry, I screwed that up with the quote block.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/9/2012 @ 12:27 pmI hate to tell you this, but a society either either reinforces its norms or it slowly dies.
Sociologists who have looked into the matter have identified 4 stages on the road to suicide. The first stage is when marriage is the norm, and unmarried cohabitation is disreputable and frowned upon. The second is when unmarried cohabitation becomes acceptable as sort of a trial period before marriage. Then unmarried cohabitation becomes acceptable, period. It’s at that third stage when gay marriage becomes thinkable. No one is convinced anymore that marriage is even worth defending, so what the hey. “What the hey” is the fourth stage.
A society that can seriously contemplate gay marriage is also a society in which the Kardashians can get their own TV show. Or a 16 year old single mom. It’s also a society which not only doesn’t reproduce, it can’t even think of a good reason why it should.
Maybe you’ve never been exposed to feminist thought. I did a couple of decades ago while in college. In between throwing out what I was told were anonymous surveys addressed to me by name from the “wymyn’s center,” in which I was supposed to confess how many times I raped the “wymyn” I dated and what rape methods I used (invariably followed up by a letter from the wymyn’s center also addressed to me by name asking why I hadn’t sent in my anonymous survey) I managed to take note of the fact that feminists supported gay marriage. Because they hated the idea of marriage, which oppresses wymyn. And gay marriage would be a nail in the coffin of the idea of marriage.
In the places where these ideas managed to achieve their greatest success, societal trends have managed to go exactly how they figured. I didn’t believe at the time that a bunch of dumb broads sending me surveys in which they expected I’d incriminate myself (for the record, I never raped any of the girls I dated, but I have no doubt the wymyn’s center could have figured out a way to twist my answers to fit their definition of rape) could have figured things out so clearly so long ago. But they did.
Check it out if you think I’m bringing on the crazy. Wherever you find growing support for gay marriage, you’ll also find a growing out-of-wedlock birth rate. The shrinking numbers of kids being born are more and more likely to be produced by single moms.
And then you’ll also find a society that is working really hard at kidding itself that one thing doesn’t have anything to do with the other, and anyway none of this is a problem that could possibly have any imaginable negative consequences.
Steve (90e0d3) — 5/9/2012 @ 4:14 pm42 “Check it out if you think I’m bringing on the crazy. Wherever you find growing support for gay marriage, you’ll also find a growing out-of-wedlock birth rate. The shrinking numbers of kids being born are more and more likely to be produced by single moms.”
UM, isn’t out of wedlock birth highest in the black community, and isn’t OPPOSITION to gay marriage also highest in the black community?
Can I call you crazy? 😀
Alex (c76e4d) — 5/9/2012 @ 4:16 pmPeople aren’t consistent. They’re a mass of contradictions.
Among people who are born to single moms, and whose mom was born to a single mom, and now that the Great Society is approaching the half century mark, grandma was born to a single mom, support for marriage is pretty much non-existent.
In general, and this isn’t a scientific study, the black single mom’s I know don’t really feel too strongly about gay marriage but their preacher tells them homosexuality is wrong. So they’ll toss in their lukewarm support behind a gay marriage ban.
The white single mom’s I know generally aren’t church goers. So they don’t have a preacher in their life. They’re independent. They don’t need no man in their life (except Barack Obama). They can apply for food stamps and MediCaid and whatever other benefits they’re eligible for all on their grown-up lonesome. And they can also take a more consistent attitude on what a preacher might tell them constitutes sin. They’re not against a lot of it.
Steve (90e0d3) — 5/9/2012 @ 4:34 pmOut of curiosity, how many black moms, and how many white moms do you know that were part of your analysis?
Alex (c76e4d) — 5/9/2012 @ 4:37 pmJust consider broadening your horizons for once. Look at societies that legalize gay marriage. Look at the rate of single motherhood. See if there isn’t a correlation.
Steve (90e0d3) — 5/9/2012 @ 4:37 pm46: OK, I will work on that. Now, how many black moms and white moms was it?
Alex (c76e4d) — 5/9/2012 @ 4:40 pmSave your breath, Steve.
JD (d4dd44) — 5/9/2012 @ 4:53 pmI didn’t keep an accurate count. Over the years, plenty. Especially when I was in the Navy and the Clinton administration’s policy was that single motherhood wasn’t incompatible with military service. Some of us thought differently. I actually knew an Army Sargeant assigned to a criticial fill billet in Korea who was a single mom. So she was on the non-combatant evacuation list. An Army Sargeant and a non-combatant! I thought that was about as clear evidence you could ever get that single motherhood was incompatible with military service, but after Tailhook Pat Schroeder and company weren’t listening to me.
A smarter guy than me once observed that if the government is giving away free cat food, the government is in the business of breeding cats. Just because someone never got past High School, or maybe only has a GED, doesn’t mean they can’t figure out the system and game it. And move out into their own apartment as opposed to not getting knocked up and remaining stuck sleeping in enlisted berthing on the ship.
The black girls tended to be more socially conservative. Whereas it was forgivable for them to break a few commandments and have kids, it wasn’t ok for gays to have a similar attitude.
In general, and their were of course individual differences, the black girls didn’t seem to feel to strongly about it.
The white girls couldn’t even go through the motions of pretending about traditional morality and keep a straight face.
Steve (90e0d3) — 5/9/2012 @ 4:59 pmSteve, just messing with you. I feel that I threw out a fact, and you replied with made up blah blah. I doubt you know very many, if any moms, black or white, and certainly not well enough to know about their specific views on gay marriage, their church attendance and how much they are influenced by their pastors.
So I’m gonna call you crazy (as you said we could do) and call it a day. 😀
Alex (c76e4d) — 5/9/2012 @ 5:07 pmClearly a good bit of advice which I should have taken. The evidence for what I’m saying is freely available. At this point you’ve got to willfully ignore it. Maybe pretend I’m just making things up.
It’s a bizarre world. I can repeat what a feminist has published, and point out that things are going along as she predicted, and it’s dismissed as a lunatic idea that somehow I came up with on my own.
Feminists can write editorials celebrating how they’ve liberated women by gutting the idea of marriage of its last shred of meaning, and I observe that and I get accused of making things up.
Marriage is viewed as “just a piece of paper” in most of the Western world now. There are thirty something couples raising kids together in countries that not only aren’t married, see no reason to get married, but don’t even know any other couples who are married.
Those are the kind of places where it strikes people as a good idea to legalize gay marriage. After all, it’s just a piece of paper.
As far as me knowing or not knowing any single moms, I don’t know what would constitute proof. For most of my life I’ve lived and worked (when I wasn’t stationed overseas) in places where I’d vote against the Congressperson from the Congressional Black Caucus and lose. Not to generalize about everyone who lived there, but it’s a demographic fact that single motherhood is pretty common in the black community.
But I never met such a woman. Right.
Really, single motherhood isn’t all that rare in the white community, if it’s not racist to remark on the existence of such a thing. Or Christofascist to imply I might not think single-motherhood is just another one of many perfectly valid and admirable life-style choices available at the sexual smorgasbord we’re all supposed to be enjoying.
I guess I’m just not open-minded. I’m so not open-minded I can actually look at societies around the world and notice a correlation between single-motherhood, declining fertility rates, and support for gay marriage. Really open-minded people know that’s an observation that no good hearted individual who’s secure in their sexuality would ever allow to stray into their heads. And the good open-minded people of the US will shut down any mention of such close-minded facts right quick. After all, you can only be a good person if you think correct thoughts.
Steve (90e0d3) — 5/9/2012 @ 5:47 pmgay marriage is the future hah! brass monkey! that funky monkey!
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/9/2012 @ 5:55 pmHuh? What does govt. being involved in marriage got to do with whether a church can be forced to perform a marriage? You don’t need a church to get married regardless of whether govt. recognizes marriages. And if you somehow couldn’t get married without a church, then they would still be sue-able even if govt. wasn’t involved in marriage.
In order for the partner to automatically have a say in that stuff, marriage has to have a legal component, so the govt. logically has to be able to say what was a legal marriage. You would have to have a marriage licence to prove you are married. Of course there is living wills anyway as Icy pointed out.
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 5/10/2012 @ 7:38 pm