Family and "family values" belong no where else but within the family.
The government should simply butt out.
Wade
Posted by: Wade at July 26, 2006 02:14 AM
Wade,
Sorry, wrong answer - family is what makes up society; if family isn't vigorously defended in law and custom, then we'll all die.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at July 26, 2006 02:24 AM
Matt,
According to you, then, the liberal Northeast should be an epicenter of anti-family traits.
Explain this to me, then: why does the Northeast have significantly LOWER rates of divorce, abortion, crime, etc. than the bastion of conservatism, the deep South?
Could it be that liberals are so confident in their abilities to raise families correctly that they don't need legislation to do it? No, I'm sure its something different, please spin me some 'truth' on why Democrats are anti-family, liberal, godless, commie, fascist, terrorist-loving homos.
Posted by: steve at July 26, 2006 08:47 AM
Mark,
I see party-politics are not lost on you guys come election time, good to see everyone is up to the fight you're going to have trying to make people believe that flag burning is somehow a bigger issue than 2500 dead Americans, and countless dead Iraqis, hmm?
I can't see how you guys reconcile the plank of your platform where by you decry governmental interference into your family, yet you actively genuflect to the idea that Big Brother knows best when it comes to decisions that should be left to the family, such as whether a young girl wishes to avoid a pregnancy that may have been inflicted upon her by those who were supposed to protect her.
Posted by: Third Eye Open at July 26, 2006 09:25 AM
I can't see...
No kidding. Get lost, troll.
Posted by:
Reverend Scaramonga at July 26, 2006 10:03 AM
The Republicans hijacked ownership of religion and are now attempting to do the same with "the family".
Of course it is only their narrow definitions that are legitimate.
My extended in-law family just left, and believe me it was a madhouse at times. (Think Chevy Chase's Christmas Vacation). But I wouldn't trade the support and closeness they bring for anything. Yes a liberal for family values.
Posted by:
Ash at July 26, 2006 10:12 AM
Are Democrats The Anti-Family Party?
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Hell Yes!
Posted by:
Reverend Scaramonga at July 26, 2006 10:29 AM
"Are Democrats The Anti-Family Party?
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Hell Yes!"
Well...how can you argue with such a well presented case?
Posted by: Third Eye Open at July 26, 2006 11:10 AM
I'd love to have the banana concession at your family reuninon Rev. Knuckledragger.
Now there's a fine capatilistic idea!!!!!
Posted by:
Ash at July 26, 2006 11:54 AM
Rev Knuckledragger interpreted:
No kidding. Get lost, troll = lalalala I can't hear you.
Posted by:
Ash at July 26, 2006 11:57 AM
Well...how can you argue with such a well presented case?
Getting lost would be a good start, troll. Take a hint - get lost.
Posted by:
Reverend Scaramonga at July 26, 2006 12:18 PM
I'd love to have the banana concession at your family reuninon Rev. Knuckledragger.
Yea, and I'd like to have the SlimFast concession at your love-nest. Tons to lose and so little time to lose it.
Posted by:
Reverend Scaramonga at July 26, 2006 12:20 PM
Getting lost would be a good start, troll. Take a hint - get lost.
Another brilliant repartee, hey, TEO?
Posted by:
Ash at July 26, 2006 01:02 PM
Sorry, wrong answer - family is what makes up society; if family isn't vigorously defended in law and custom, then we'll all die.
We'll all die? Geez, Noonan, is there anything you won't apply hilariously overwrought stark raving terror to?
Posted by: SeesThroughIt at July 26, 2006 03:22 PM
We should be promoting personal responsibility, not having the government enforce it.
Posted by: Georgia Frawg at July 26, 2006 05:15 PM
This just in:
WASHINGTON, DC - Following the positive examples of New York, Nebraska, Connecticut, Georgia, and Tennessee, the Washington Supreme Court today upheld marriage as the union between a man and a woman in Washington State. The Alliance for Marriage, who drafted the Marriage Protection Amendment, today celebrated the Washington State Supreme Court decision protecting marriage as between a man and a woman. "Most Americans believe that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose. But they don't believe they have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society," said Daniels. "Americans want our laws to send a positive message to children about marriage, family and their future."
Posted by:
Reverend Scaramonga at July 26, 2006 06:31 PM
Why is the party of small government and privacy trying to dictate the personal decisions of private citizens and their family?
Posted by: goodbody at July 26, 2006 11:00 PM
Why is the party of small government...
"Most Americans believe that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose. But they don't believe they have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society," said Daniels. "Americans want our laws to send a positive message to children about marriage, family and their future."
Where does it say that they're trying to dictate what homosexuals do? Seems to me that homosexuals are trying to dictate changes to cultural and legal standards in an effort to demand acceptance by mainstream society - in other words, the other way around from how you describe it. Also, note that was the Supreme Court of Washington State - a very liberal state - that made that decision - not the Republican party.
Same-sex marriage is not and has never been recognized in Washington state. There is even a Washington State version of the DOMA (defense of marriage act) signed into law. Now, the homosexual community, failing in their abilities to defeat the law on its merits because the majority of citizens want the law and the homosexual community has no real political power, turned to the courts. So it wasn't the party of small government that initiated the legal action that resulted in this decision, it was the homosexual community - demanding access to marriage and not settling for "domestic unions" that had the same legal rights as marriage.
A decision in two cases that were on appeal to the Washington Supreme Court could have made Washington the second U.S. state to recognize these unions. But the State Supreme court decided against the lower court rulings. One of the interesting things in this ruling is the rejection of the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the US Constitution as a reason to overturn the DOMA. That is significant because it is the main (and some say only) legal tool the homosexual community has nationwide to assail DOMA laws - laws that are in effect in 45 of the 50 states.
This is a losing battle for the homosexual community. They are able, with little opposition, able to get legal protection as "domestic partners" that equals marriage rights in every way except one - the right to call their union a marriage. Still that's not enough for them. One wonders what it is they're really after. But the facts remain, this Washington State law, and the State Supreme Court decision supporting it are not due to "the party of small government" but rather the will of the people of the state of Washington. They can easily change the laws if they desire. My suspicion is that knowing that the homosexual community is small and unable to convince those outside of it that calling their relationships marriage is a good thing, that they will continue to bring more and more cases to court. THAT is what is time consuming and costly to taxpayers. And as legal decisions against the homosexual demand for access to marriage pile up in state after state, the chances they will get anywhere are nil. So put the blame where it belongs - on those who keep filing law suit after law suit in a Quixotic attempt to force their morals on the much larger communities in which they live.
Posted by:
Reverend Scaramonga at July 27, 2006 09:57 AM
Family and "family values" belong no where else but within the family.
The government should simply butt out.
Wade
Wade,
Sorry, wrong answer - family is what makes up society; if family isn't vigorously defended in law and custom, then we'll all die.
Matt,
According to you, then, the liberal Northeast should be an epicenter of anti-family traits.
Explain this to me, then: why does the Northeast have significantly LOWER rates of divorce, abortion, crime, etc. than the bastion of conservatism, the deep South?
Could it be that liberals are so confident in their abilities to raise families correctly that they don't need legislation to do it? No, I'm sure its something different, please spin me some 'truth' on why Democrats are anti-family, liberal, godless, commie, fascist, terrorist-loving homos.
Mark,
I see party-politics are not lost on you guys come election time, good to see everyone is up to the fight you're going to have trying to make people believe that flag burning is somehow a bigger issue than 2500 dead Americans, and countless dead Iraqis, hmm?
I can't see how you guys reconcile the plank of your platform where by you decry governmental interference into your family, yet you actively genuflect to the idea that Big Brother knows best when it comes to decisions that should be left to the family, such as whether a young girl wishes to avoid a pregnancy that may have been inflicted upon her by those who were supposed to protect her.
I can't see...
No kidding. Get lost, troll.
The Republicans hijacked ownership of religion and are now attempting to do the same with "the family".
Of course it is only their narrow definitions that are legitimate.
My extended in-law family just left, and believe me it was a madhouse at times. (Think Chevy Chase's Christmas Vacation). But I wouldn't trade the support and closeness they bring for anything. Yes a liberal for family values.
Are Democrats The Anti-Family Party?
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Hell Yes!
"Are Democrats The Anti-Family Party?
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Hell Yes!"
Well...how can you argue with such a well presented case?
I'd love to have the banana concession at your family reuninon Rev. Knuckledragger.
Now there's a fine capatilistic idea!!!!!
Rev Knuckledragger interpreted:
No kidding. Get lost, troll = lalalala I can't hear you.
Well...how can you argue with such a well presented case?
Getting lost would be a good start, troll. Take a hint - get lost.
I'd love to have the banana concession at your family reuninon Rev. Knuckledragger.
Yea, and I'd like to have the SlimFast concession at your love-nest. Tons to lose and so little time to lose it.
Getting lost would be a good start, troll. Take a hint - get lost.
Another brilliant repartee, hey, TEO?
Sorry, wrong answer - family is what makes up society; if family isn't vigorously defended in law and custom, then we'll all die.
We'll all die? Geez, Noonan, is there anything you won't apply hilariously overwrought stark raving terror to?
We should be promoting personal responsibility, not having the government enforce it.
This just in:
Why is the party of small government and privacy trying to dictate the personal decisions of private citizens and their family?
Why is the party of small government...
Where does it say that they're trying to dictate what homosexuals do? Seems to me that homosexuals are trying to dictate changes to cultural and legal standards in an effort to demand acceptance by mainstream society - in other words, the other way around from how you describe it. Also, note that was the Supreme Court of Washington State - a very liberal state - that made that decision - not the Republican party.
Same-sex marriage is not and has never been recognized in Washington state. There is even a Washington State version of the DOMA (defense of marriage act) signed into law. Now, the homosexual community, failing in their abilities to defeat the law on its merits because the majority of citizens want the law and the homosexual community has no real political power, turned to the courts. So it wasn't the party of small government that initiated the legal action that resulted in this decision, it was the homosexual community - demanding access to marriage and not settling for "domestic unions" that had the same legal rights as marriage.
A decision in two cases that were on appeal to the Washington Supreme Court could have made Washington the second U.S. state to recognize these unions. But the State Supreme court decided against the lower court rulings. One of the interesting things in this ruling is the rejection of the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the US Constitution as a reason to overturn the DOMA. That is significant because it is the main (and some say only) legal tool the homosexual community has nationwide to assail DOMA laws - laws that are in effect in 45 of the 50 states.
This is a losing battle for the homosexual community. They are able, with little opposition, able to get legal protection as "domestic partners" that equals marriage rights in every way except one - the right to call their union a marriage. Still that's not enough for them. One wonders what it is they're really after. But the facts remain, this Washington State law, and the State Supreme Court decision supporting it are not due to "the party of small government" but rather the will of the people of the state of Washington. They can easily change the laws if they desire. My suspicion is that knowing that the homosexual community is small and unable to convince those outside of it that calling their relationships marriage is a good thing, that they will continue to bring more and more cases to court. THAT is what is time consuming and costly to taxpayers. And as legal decisions against the homosexual demand for access to marriage pile up in state after state, the chances they will get anywhere are nil. So put the blame where it belongs - on those who keep filing law suit after law suit in a Quixotic attempt to force their morals on the much larger communities in which they live.