»» Columnists

Beauty And The Beast: A Tale Of Two Positions On Gay Marriage From Christie And Bachmann

Video

by Matt Schneider | 6:37 pm, June 26th, 2011

» 55 comments

Now before anyone gets too excited, let me quickly establish that “beauty” and “beast” are adjectives I’m using to describe how New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Republican presidential candidate and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann speak, and not how they look. With that out of the way, contrasting their two Sunday show appearances should demonstrate that as politicians, Christie does indeed speak “beautifully” while Bachmann’s utterances are frighteningly filled with contradictions and migraine-inducing head-scratchers.

The state of New York’s legalization of same sex marriage was the topic for a question posed to both Christie and Bachmann as they appeared on Meet the Press and Fox News Sunday, respectively. The issue is interesting in that it is often the Republican party that is in favor of states’ rights and opposed to one-size fits all, big government legislation (like Obamacare) to solve problems. Therefore, the question moving forward is whether conservative champions of state rights applaud the New York legislative process or whether they deem the definition of marriage to be of such national significance that a federal policy is required to prevent the dangers of conflicting state rules?

Christie unapologetically makes his stance on the issue clear:

“I am not a fan of same sex marriage. It’s not something that I support. I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. That’s my view and that will be the view of our state, because I wouldn’t sign a bill like the one that was in New York.”

In under one minute Christie simply and eloquently establishes his opposition to the New York bill. If you disagree with his position, and this is the only issue by which you choose your political candidate, then Christie is simply not for you. And he’s fine with that. How truly refreshing to hear a politician just say their opinion, knowing as he does, how truly unpopular it might be in his own liberal state that also happens to neighbor New York.

Let’s compare this response to Bachmann who literally takes four minutes answering the same question, and where at one point her interviewer, Chris Wallace admits “I’m confused by your position on this.” Bachmann at first declares “in New York state, they have passed the law at the state legislative level and, under the 10th amendment, the states have the right to set the laws that they want to set.” When Wallace assumes, like anyone listening would, that Bachmann’s acknowledgment that New York has the right to define marriage through the legislative process would mean she opposes a Constitutional amendment defining marriage (which would expressly prohibit New York from doing what she just said she approved of), Bachmann says no. In fact, she also wants a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage to be between a man and a woman.

The potential argument to help her erase these contradictions and to make her reasoning consistent would be to say “until there is a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman, I reluctantly support any state’s right to make that determination in the absence of a needed Amendment.” Instead of saying that one sentence, Bachmann spends four minutes tap dancing to avoid saying anything too controversial and discussing how she will not appoint activist judges, attacking Obama for not enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act and throwing out this gem: “family is a fundamental unit of government.”

Bachmann needs to learn from Christie that not only is “brevity the soul of wit” but that simple, direct and honest communication also makes you a much more attractive candidate.

Watch the clips of both of Christie’s and Bachmann’s interview from NBC and Fox, respectively:

Chris Christie, Chris Wallace, David Gregory, Gay Marriage, gay rights, Michele Bachmann

THE REAL ROYAL KING

Christie unapologetically makes his stance on the issue clear:

“I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman.”

___

And, there goes the Mormon vote. Next, please.
TeaPartyNation

“…while Bachmann’s utterances are frighteningly filled with contradictions and migraine-inducing head-scratchers.”

As they get to know her conservative philosophy – which Americans overwhelmingly favor over d-cRAT socialist extremism, American voters become more and more supportive of Bachmann every day – and you know what that means…the lamestream socialist fake-news stooges will bring out the SLIME against her:

Theme song of the lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist stooges in the lamestream socialist media:

99 buckets of slime on the wall, 99 buckets of slime. When one is thrown at a American Patriot, there are 98 buckets of slime on the wall.

98 buckets of slime on the wall, 98 buckets of slime. When….

Come-on all you lunatic-lefties – join in !!! (It’s what you mental defectives do instead of rational discussion.)
THE REAL ROYAL KING

TeaPartyNation said:
“…while Bachmann’s utterances are frighteningly filled with contradictions and migraine-inducing head-scratchers.” As they get to know her conservative philosophy – which Americans overwhelmingly favor over d-cRAT socialist extremism, American voters become more and more supportive of Bachmann every day – and you know what that means…the lamestream socialist fake-news stooges will bring out the SLIME against her: Theme song of the lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist stooges in the lamestream socialist media: 99 buckets of slime on the wall, 99 buckets of slime. When one is thrown at a American Patriot, there are 98 buckets of slime on the wall. 98 buckets of slime on the wall, 98 buckets of slime. When…. Come-on all you lunatic-lefties – join in !!! (It’s what you mental defectives do instead of rational discussion.)

I suspect you’ll never make it as a lyricist.
Thelonious Funk

Why is no one talking about the Man and Turtle Marriage Bill that will no doubt come to the New York legislature now?
LOGICandREASON

TeaPartyNation said:
“…while Bachmann’s utterances are frighteningly filled with contradictions and migraine-inducing head-scratchers.”

As they get to know her conservative philosophy – which Americans overwhelmingly favor over d-cRAT socialist extremism, American voters become more and more supportive of Bachmann every day – and you know what that means…the lamestream socialist fake-news stooges will bring out the SLIME against her:

Theme song of the lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist stooges in the lamestream socialist media:

99 buckets of slime on the wall, 99 buckets of slime. When one is thrown at a American Patriot, there are 98 buckets of slime on the wall.

98 buckets of slime on the wall, 98 buckets of slime. When….

Come-on all you lunatic-lefties – join in !!! (It’s what you mental defectives do instead of rational discussion.)

LMAO
http://www.facebook.com/people/Tom-Bennett/660327155 Tom Bennett

TeaPartyNation said:
“…while Bachmann’s utterances are frighteningly filled with contradictions and migraine-inducing head-scratchers.”

As they get to know her conservative philosophy – which Americans overwhelmingly favor over d-cRAT socialist extremism, American voters become more and more supportive of Bachmann every day – and you know what that means…the lamestream socialist fake-news stooges will bring out the SLIME against her:

Theme song of the lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist stooges in the lamestream socialist media:

99 buckets of slime on the wall, 99 buckets of slime. When one is thrown at a American Patriot, there are 98 buckets of slime on the wall.

98 buckets of slime on the wall, 98 buckets of slime. When….

Come-on all you lunatic-lefties – join in !!! (It’s what you mental defectives do instead of rational discussion.)

She’s a moron.
LOGICandREASON

I cannot wait for New York and other Liberal states to pass more bills that allow Mum & Son marriage, and Woman & Horse marriage. At least we generally agree that people have the right to live their lives the way they want. Nobody should be prevented from marrying whoever or whatever they choose to, doing so will be injustice.

Incest and Bestiality right activists will emerge at some point in the near future; especially when they become a significant demographic of the electorate that Politicians have to reckon with. Political correctness will be what determines the convictions of those who seek public office, rather than their conscience and common sense.

“Right is right, even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it” —-William 1644 – 1718
LOGICandREASON

“Right is right, even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it” —-William Penn 1644 – 1718
THE REAL ROYAL KING

LOGICandREASON said:
I cannot wait for New York and other Liberal states to pass more bills that allow Mum & Son marriage, and Woman & Horse marriage.

Actually, I believe these laws are already in effect in Kentucky, west Virginia and Alabama.
Nationman

LOGICandREASON said:
I cannot wait for New York and other Liberal states to pass more bills that allow Mum & Son marriage, and Woman & Horse marriage. At least we generally agree that people have the right to live their lives the way they want. Nobody should be prevented from marrying whoever or whatever they choose to, doing so will be injustice.

Incest and Bestiality right activists will emerge at some point in the near future; especially when they become a significant demographic of the electorate that Politicians have to reckon with. Political correctness will be what determines the convictions of those who seek public office, rather than their conscience and common sense.

“Right is right, even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it” —-William 1644 – 1718

you’re right, if we let a same sex couple marry soon we’ll be letting people marry their horses. it’s like how we let women have the vote and right after that hamsters were lining up in droves thanks to the new hamster suffrage act.
Greg

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
Actually, I believe these laws are already in effect in Kentucky, west Virginia and Alabama.

The resultant malformed offspring adoring of sloppy equivocation, eager to build men of straw and quick to leap inductively.
Nationman

LOGICandREASON said:
“Right is right, even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it” —-William Penn 1644 – 1718

you’re quoting the quaker oats guy? Lmao.
ProudCanadian

TeaPartyNation said:
“…while Bachmann’s utterances are frighteningly filled with contradictions and migraine-inducing head-scratchers.”

As they get to know her conservative philosophy – which Americans overwhelmingly favor over d-cRAT socialist extremism, American voters become more and more supportive of Bachmann every day – and you know what that means…the lamestream socialist fake-news stooges will bring out the SLIME against her:

Theme song of the lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist stooges in the lamestream socialist media:

99 buckets of slime on the wall, 99 buckets of slime. When one is thrown at a American Patriot, there are 98 buckets of slime on the wall.

98 buckets of slime on the wall, 98 buckets of slime. When….

Come-on all you lunatic-lefties – join in !!! (It’s what you mental defectives do instead of rational discussion.)

I don’t believe anyone here, left or right, has any clue as to what you’re going on about. Do you really disagree that Bachman was just evading the question, trying to avoid controversy? I get that you’re a tea party supporter, and that’s cool, but how can you say she made any sense in that instance? If she was a democrat, and had the same views, would you still support her? Anyway, she’s a novelty act, who’ll never make it very far in the presidential race, and I think anyone who says gay people should not be allowed to marry is just a religious zealot nutball who should not be taken seriously anyway.
Greg

LOGICandREASON said:
“Right is right, even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it” —-William Penn 1644 – 1718

An example of “primary certitude”, the abdication of “LOGICandREASON”.
TillieGlockenspiel

ProudCanadian said:
I don’t believe anyone here, left or right, has any clue as to what you’re going on about. Do you really disagree that Bachman was just evading the question, trying to avoid controversy? I get that you’re a tea party supporter, and that’s cool, but how can you say she made any sense in that instance? If she was a democrat, and had the same views, would you still support her? Anyway, she’s a novelty act, who’ll never make it very far in the presidential race, and I think anyone who says gay people should not be allowed to marry is just a religious zealot nutball who should not be taken seriously anyway.

You are incorrect. While I may not agree with or like certain legislation enacted by individual states, I DO acknowledge their right, under the Tenth Amendment, to enact those laws. If a same sex marriage is transacted in New York, the couple may not obtain a divorce in Texas, because Texas does not acknowledge “same sex marriage.” A contractual relationship, yes, a marriage, no.
TillieGlockenspiel

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/06/on-what-rational-basis-does-ny-state-now-deny-polyamorous-clustors-the-right-to-marry/

The polyamory slippery slope argument was met with derision precisely because it raised a legitimate point. There are ample historical and modern examples of societies which recognize polygamy and less frequently, polyandry. A couple of years ago Newsweek ran an article arguing that polyamory was the wave fo the future here, accompanied by a photo history of polyamorous societies. ABC News ran a similar article, in the context of the debate over Prop. 8 in California.

The counter argument, that polyamory is a choice but homosexuality is not, is questionable. Given the high rates of infidelity, particularly among our male politicians, there is every reason to believe that people are hard-wired not to be monogamous. What better for society, the argument would go, than to give that non-monogamous tendency an outlet within the family unit?

The legal argument in favor of same-sex marriage, which breaks a marriage down into pieces and then attempts to demonstrate that there is no rational basis to distinguish same-sex relationships, applies with equal force to polyamorous relationships, if one is going to be intellectually honest about it.

Don’t take my word for it. Listen to this audio clip of a talk by Martha Nussbaum, Professor at the University of Chicago School of Law and one of the most prominent intellects advocating for same-sex marriage. (You will find the full hour and 25 minute audio at the link, but I’ve clipped the ending part where she discussed polygamy and incest.) Nussbaum argues that most if not all of the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage apply to polygamous relationships, and even goes so far as to argue that modern genetic science demonstrates that there is no rational scientific basis for barring marriage as to some incestuous relationships.

Once society decides that one-man, one-woman no longer is the “arbitrary” standard, on what rational basis do we stop at one-and-one?

This is not a slippery slope argument against same-sex marriage, at least not in New York State. Same-sex marriage has been signed into law and will become effective in less than 30 days.

Why stop at one-and-one?
pdxuser

LOGICandREASON said:
I cannot wait for New York and other Liberal states to pass more bills that allow Mum & Son marriage, and Woman & Horse marriage.

Neither minors nor horses can give consent. The same can’t be said for gay people.
pdxuser

Tillie, plural marriages are unequal. Whereas in a two-person marriage, neither party is outnumbered and each party can end the marriage, a plural marriage is at best a club, where you must adhere to the majority’s wishes or be kicked out, and at worst, a dictatorship, where the man chooses which women stay or go.
ProudCanadian

I’m sorry, but the whole “only a man and a woman may marry” is just such an antiquated view, and the law should be updated to reflect current mores. At one point in American history, a black person was not allowed to marry a white person; obviously, social mores have changed, and so did the law. Am I a supporter of polygamy? Not really, but if people want to do it, than they should appeal to their respective governments and try to have the law changed.
NeoKong

Slow day Matt….?
Some people might call that a discussion. They happen from time to time during an interview.
I hate to interrupt your man crush but the question that was posed the Christie was not what he would do as governor but if he supported a federal amendment to the Constitution.
A question he never answered.
Nationman

TillieGlockenspiel said:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/06/on-what-rational-basis-does-ny-state-now-deny-polyamorous-clustors-the-right-to-marry/

The polyamory slippery slope argument was met with derision precisely because it raised a legitimate point. There are ample historical and modern examples of societies which recognize polygamy and less frequently, polyandry. A couple of years ago Newsweek ran an article arguing that polyamory was the wave fo the future here, accompanied by a photo history of polyamorous societies. ABC News ran a similar article, in the context of the debate over Prop. 8 in California.

The counter argument, that polyamory is a choice but homosexuality is not, is questionable. Given the high rates of infidelity, particularly among our male politicians, there is every reason to believe that people are hard-wired not to be monogamous. What better for society, the argument would go, than to give that non-monogamous tendency an outlet within the family unit?

The legal argument in favor of same-sex marriage, which breaks a marriage down into pieces and then attempts to demonstrate that there is no rational basis to distinguish same-sex relationships, applies with equal force to polyamorous relationships, if one is going to be intellectually honest about it.

Don’t take my word for it. Listen to this audio clip of a talk by Martha Nussbaum, Professor at the University of Chicago School of Law and one of the most prominent intellects advocating for same-sex marriage. (You will find the full hour and 25 minute audio at the link, but I’ve clipped the ending part where she discussed polygamy and incest.) Nussbaum argues that most if not all of the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage apply to polygamous relationships, and even goes so far as to argue that modern genetic science demonstrates that there is no rational scientific basis for barring marriage as to some incestuous relationships.

Once society decides that one-man, one-woman no longer is the “arbitrary” standard, on what rational basis do we stop at one-and-one?

This is not a slippery slope argument against same-sex marriage, at least not in New York State. Same-sex marriage has been signed into law and will become effective in less than 30 days.

Why stop at one-and-one?

my argument would be have those other behaviors been legalized in countries where gay marriage is legal? Also the relationships you are describing are naturally predatory in nature, ie: one party is essentially being taken advantage of. Honestly, I think the government shouldn’t be giving out marriage licenses in the first place, let people have civil unions that can be between anyone and have other establishments give out marriage certificates.
darladoon

if you want to talk about “migraine-inducing” language, look no further than matt schneider, who
authored this blog posting. “one size fits all, big government legislation”?

there’s a reason why we have such legislation. look at the civil rights act, for example.

the same can be said of gay rights.

if gay people in, say, wyoming can’t marry, then it’s up to lawmakers and judges to make sure these
people are protected from discrimination.

so, please, spare us the “one size, big government” misnomers.
darladoon

and chris christie is a total ass*ole, btw
The Lantern of Truth

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
Actually, I believe these laws are already in effect in Kentucky, west Virginia and Alabama.

And Texas . Robert okay with whatever you want to do or say about anything . Kind of Gabby , isn’t he ? He especially likes prison love .

TheReal Royal King says :

June 24 , 2011 at 3:02 pm

BTW. Your mother said to tell you she went down to Arcola and had a conjugal visit with your uncle last weekend . He’s got hopes for the new appeal .
The Lantern of Truth

Beauty And The Beast: A Tale Of Two Positions On Gay Marriage From Christie And Bachmann

Then there’s King Obama’s and Old Joe’s positition .

They’re ” evolving” .

Both of them .

Really .
The Lantern of Truth

The Lantern of Truth said:
Then there’s King Obama’s and Old Joe’s positition .
They’re ” evolving” .
Both of them .
Really .

Naw. They’re both liars . What a surprise .
Patrick Henry

Christie rocks.
haode

cheap wholesale NFL jerseys, buy authentic NFL jerseys
at http://www.new-york-jets-jerseys.com
http://gordonbloyershow.com gordonbloyershow

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
Christie unapologetically makes his stance on the issue clear: “I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman.” ___ And, there goes the Mormon vote. Next, please.

Poor RRK, you never seek to amaze me at how stupid you are. You really are the KING of STUPID.
LOGICandREASON

pdxuser said:
certitude

How does the word “Son” signify a minor?

What then is the basis for Animal rights? Do you have even the slightest knowledge of the concept and how it’s applied today?
LOGICandREASON

pdxuser said:
Neither minors nor horses can give consent. The same can’t be said for gay people.

How does the word “Son” signify a minor?

What then is the basis for Animal rights? Do you have even the slightest knowledge of the concept and how it’s applied today?
http://TheDividedStatesBlog.com Publius219

Yes, we know Bachmann makes no sense and that conservatives only like the amendments they agree with when they agree with them (i.e. 2nd, 10th) and hate the ones they don’t like (1st, 4th, 8th). This is not news. I don’t doubt their ignorance to their own hypocrisy for even a second, but it’s worth pointing out nonetheless.
http://TheDividedStatesBlog.com Publius219

Although, in fairness, both sides hate the 1st amendment at various times.
Nature Freak

Despite all my issues with Chris Christie, Governor Christie is far far superior to Michele Bachmann. I may be wrong and correct me if I am, but at least Christie supports civil unions.

Michele Bachmann may be well meaning but her hardcore interpretation of Christianity really bothers me. I look forward to the day (and it will someday come) when homophobia is not considered a family value.

Bachmann’s speaking skills have actually improved recently, but Christie still has way better communication skills, and is direct and to the point.

As a Democrat I would prefer both of them to lose.
Paleoconservatarian

Nature Freak said:
Despite all my issues with Chris Christie, Governor Christie is far far superior to Michele Bachmann. I may be wrong and correct me if I am, but at least Christie supports civil unions.

Michele Bachmann may be well meaning but her hardcore interpretation of Christianity really bothers me. I look forward to the day (and it will someday come) when homophobia is not considered a family value.

Bachmann’s speaking skills have actually improved recently, but Christie still has way better communication skills, and is direct and to the point.

As a Democrat I would prefer both of them to lose.

Must be nice to perch yourself on your high horse to be able to describe anyone who doesn’t hold the same view you have on a subject as a phobic. Even as much of the country believes as Bachmann does the definition of marriage as between a man and a women. But since you’ve already decided each and every one of them are all haters… too bad for you you must keep the company of the majority of the American people. If that were the basis alone, I’d hope you’d enjoy you’re false sense of moral superiority under a Bachmann presidency.
Mikifinn

Chris Christie has the opinion the budget should be fair and just. Too bad those making political machine power decisions are not included in budget adjustments. The fair way is to include additional tax revenue from the corporation and those making more than $500K.
Nature Freak

Queen (sung by Freddie Mercury)

I want to break free
I want to break free from your lies
You’re so self satisfied I don’t need you
I’ve want to break free
God knows, God knows I want to break free

I’ve fallen in love
I’ve fallen in love for the first time
And this time I know it’s for real
I’ve fallen in love, yeah
God knows, God knows I’ve fallen in love

It’s strange but it’s true
I can’t get over the way you love me like you do
But I have to be sure
When I walk out that door
Oh how I want to be free, baby
Oh how I want to break free,
Oh how I want to break free

But life still goes on
I can’t get used to, living without, living without,
Living without you by my side
I don’t want to live alone, hey
God knows, got to make it on my own
So baby can’t you see
God knows, gods know, gods know
I’ve want to break free

BIGOTRY, INTOLERANCE AND HATE SUCKS!
Nature Freak

Paleoconservatarian said:
Must be nice to perch yourself on your high horse to be able to describe anyone who doesn’t hold the same view you have on a subject as a phobic. Even as much of the country believes as Bachmann does the definition of marriage as between a man and a women. But since you’ve already decided each and every one of them are all haters… too bad for you you must keep the company of the majority of the American people. If that were the basis alone, I’d hope you’d enjoy you’re false sense of moral superiority under a Bachmann presidency.

So LBJ was perched on his “high horse” back in 1965?

I suspect your not a big fan of Martin Luther King? Langston Hughes must give you the vapors.

Being from the South, I know your type so very well.
Nature Freak

Paleoconservatarian said:
Must be nice to perch yourself on your high horse to be able to describe anyone who doesn’t hold the same view you have on a subject as a phobic. Even as much of the country believes as Bachmann does the definition of marriage as between a man and a women. But since you’ve already decided each and every one of them are all haters… too bad for you you must keep the company of the majority of the American people. If that were the basis alone, I’d hope you’d enjoy you’re false sense of moral superiority under a Bachmann presidency.

James Baldwin was of the opinion that Gays, like Blacks, are being used as scapegoats for White society’s own fears.
Yoda002

Mr. “None of your business” gave a better answer. With Bachmann she was flipping and a flopping all over the place. She didn’t want the states rights crowd to be pissed off and didn’t want to offend the defensive marriage needed to be enforced crowd. Then she was afraid of the anti activist judges crowd. She also got her little zinger against Obama.
Nature Freak

Yoda002 said:
Mr. “None of your business” gave a better answer. With Bachmann she was flipping and a flopping all over the place. She didn’t want the states rights crowd to be pissed off and didn’t want to offend the defensive marriage needed to be enforced crowd. Then she was afraid of the anti activist judges crowd. She also got her little zinger against Obama.

Bachmann is scary.

It also scares me that her public speaking is better than before. She is learning well “from the dark side”.

Bachmann needs to be taken seriously and exposed for what she is. This includes her long documented history of outrageous and inappropriate statements. She may be a decent foster parent, but I sure as hell do not want her as president!
Independent

HOW DARE YOU CALL THE FAT TUB OF LARD CHRIS CHRISTIE A BEAST
Yoda002

Nature Freak said:
Bachmann is scary.

It also scares me that her public speaking is better than before. She is learning well “from the dark side”.

Bachmann needs to be taken seriously and exposed for what she is. This includes her long documented history of outrageous and inappropriate statements. She may be a decent foster parent, but I sure as hell do not want her as president!

She will get some momentum coming out of Iowa, but her outlandish remarks will end up hurting her in the end. She still might be VP nomination material. It’s still Romney’s to lose.
writer

King, when you slam entire states like that, be sure and specify that you’re only talking about the white people who live in them. Someone might mistake you for a bigot.
Just4thefax

ProudCanadian said:
I don’t believe anyone here, left or right, has any clue as to what you’re going on about. Do you really disagree that Bachman was just evading the question, trying to avoid controversy? I get that you’re a tea party supporter, and that’s cool, but how can you say she made any sense in that instance? If she was a democrat, and had the same views, would you still support her? Anyway, she’s a novelty act, who’ll never make it very far in the presidential race, and I think anyone who says gay people should not be allowed to marry is just a religious zealot nutball who should not be taken seriously anyway.

Fact: Bachman is a Pro-life candidate. That’s it!
skyfet

gordonbloyershow said:
Poor RRK, you never seek to amaze me at how stupid you are. You really are the KING of STUPID.

You must admit that is is funny.
justanotherconservative

skyfet said:
You must admit that is is funny.

…sigh… still cannot write a decent sentence.
potvin

The U.S.A. needs a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others now.
skyfet

justanotherconservative said:
…sigh… still cannot write a decent sentence.

Still can’t start a complete phrase, not to mention a sentence.
Nature Freak

Today from The Washington Times,

“Rep. Michele Bachmann kicked off her presidential campaign on Monday in Waterloo, Iowa, and in one interview surrounding the official event she promised to mimic the spirit of Waterloo’s own John Wayne.

The only problem, as one eagle-eyed reader notes: Waterloo’s John Wayne was not the beloved movie star, but rather John Wayne Gacy, the serial killer.”
CAconservative

Homophobia = a fear, or dislike of Homosexuals (Gays)

Does anyone really fear homosexual people, or is it the fear, and dislike of their morbid lifestyle? Homosexual’s have made the fight for a recognizes religious marriage ceremony the predominate issue, why? There’s nothing in a religious ceremony that can’t be obtained in a civil-contract, so why the dogmatic insistence?
Acceptance = a favorable reception, a tolerance.
An acceptance of their lifestyle is their goal. A goal that no cannot be achieved no matter how many corrupt special interest groups, and political-beggars buy into this inherently, unhealthy union. Nothing about homosexual-marriage passes the smell test, and they above all, know it!
LAPhil

Nature Freak said:
Queen (sung by Freddie Mercury) I want to break freeI want to break free from your liesYou’re so self satisfied I don’t need youI’ve want to break freeGod knows, God knows I want to break free I’ve fallen in loveI’ve fallen in love for the first timeAnd this time I know it’s for realI’ve fallen in love, yeahGod knows, God knows I’ve fallen in love It’s strange but it’s trueI can’t get over the way you love me like you doBut I have to be sureWhen I walk out that doorOh how I want to be free, babyOh how I want to break free,Oh how I want to break free But life still goes onI can’t get used to, living without, living without,Living without you by my sideI don’t want to live alone, heyGod knows, got to make it on my ownSo baby can’t you seeGod knows, gods know, gods knowI’ve want to break free BIGOTRY, INTOLERANCE AND HATE SUCKS!

And apparently so does your post. It’s 11-0 thumbs down!
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Ross/100002149217620 Danny Ross

There is a problem with Ms Bachmann’s statement only if someone wants to pretend there is a problem. Her answer to the issue is precisely analogous as if she had been an abolitionist asked about whether slavery should be left up to the States around, say, 1858. A principled answer would be that the States had the right, under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, to decide if slavery were legal, but that she felt that the Constitution should be amended to prohibit slavery. This is a perfectly consistent position. She is saying that it is up to the states to define what constitutes marriage, but the Constitution should be amended to define marriage at the federal level.
Paleoconservatarian

Nature Freak said:
So LBJ was perched on his “high horse” back in 1965?

I suspect your not a big fan of Martin Luther King? Langston Hughes must give you the vapors.

Being from the South, I know your type so very well.

Suppositions pulled out of thin air are nothing to worry about, but facts must be corrected. Just so you know, LBJ had a poor record on civil rights, gutted the civil rights act of 1957 & 1960 and signed a bill in ’65 in which Republicans voted for passage by a larger percentage of party than did Democrats. So, no, he had no “high horse” to perch on in 1965.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Jj-Wisniewski/100002654075475 Jj Wisniewski

Everyone wanted Christie in the race. I wanted him in the race, although, I’m against gay marriage. But, I said from the beginning that he did not fit the mold of the far right of the republican party on the social issues. I believe he knew it and that’s why he said he wouldn’t run. Another thing that does not fit the mold of the far right is the fact that he appointed a Muslim to a judgeship in New Jersey and said that he was tired of the crazies. You got to love this guy who doesn’t take crap from the left or the right. He should have run as a 3rd party independent candidate. He would have had the independent vote, most conservatives, and a lot of democrats.