I like following conservative and conservative-ish pundits on Twitter, because A) it’s good to know what the other side is saying and B) they’ve often sometimes got insightful things to say about their cause. Here are some of my favorite tweeted reactions to tonight’s debate from a couple of the nation’s leading conservative thinkers:
Occasionally I get to thinking. Cogitating, if you will.
And a thing about which I’ve thought quite a lot in recent years is what Americans mean when we use the words “Liberal” and “Conservative.”
For the record (and just in case you hadn’t noticed) I am the former (though I tend to use the word “Progressive”).
If I try to strip those two words of our daily politics, as well as of all the insults we embed within them, I would say that Liberals tend to be more driven by notions of mutual responsibility than do Conservatives, and Conservatives tend to be more driven by notions of individual responsibility than do Liberals. (Emphasis on the tend).
Thus there has long existed a notion of Conservatives as steely-eyed pragmatists, and Liberals as dewy-eyed idealists — you know: bleeding hearts. Hippies. Peace-and-love-and-possibly-overly-optimistic-notions-regarding-the-essential-nature-of-humanity.
But I would argue that, in fact, the opposite is true. At least with regard to the essential nature of humanity.
Posted in Emily L. Hauser, Musings, Political Shenanigans
Tagged American politics, conservatives, Liberals
Pulling Away From The American PeopleThis chart speaks volumes about what is happening in our country when it comes to politics. It explains what is happening with the debt ceiling debate as well as the last two and a half years of obstruction, vitriol and blatant appeals to the most conservative in the Republican Party. It may have worked out for them in 2010, without President Obama on the ticket, although you wouldn’t have known he wasn’t on the ticket if you pay attention to the media. But 2012 is going to be much different, mark my words. My fellow Michigander Nate Silver breaks it down for us, like only Nate can do. Click on the image to embiggen it!
Cross-posted at Extreme Liberal’s Blog
The New York Post–a conservative paper– has an excellent article discussing why it is that conservatives who are against gay marriage should just get over it.
Uh-oh. Now gays really, legitimately, democratically and completely non-sneakily have won the right to marry, in Vermont. Next thing you know gays preparing to wed will be everywhere, threatening our way of life by picking out china patterns in Bloomingdale’s and bickering about where to seat Uncle Floyd at the reception.
…
Does the Bible forbid gay relationships? Maybe. But if God didn’t want there to be gay people, He shouldn’t have made them. Who seriously believes that being gay is any more of a choice than being black?
Besides, not even the most fervent Christian would want to live in a Biblocracy. Covet your neighbor’s wife, or even his kitchen appliances, and go to jail? If that were government policy, how many informers would it need on the payroll to monitor the neighbors’ comments about saucy Serena (or her Sub-Zero?) Does God’s idea of civilization look like East Berlin in 1981?
The Bible is about you and your soul, and if you think your neighbor is going to hell you can’t stop him. And if you think gay relationships are immoral, surely it’s the physical act that bothers you, not the signing of licenses, not the public vows of love and fidelity, not the matching tuxedos. Not the smiling faces. Yet few will make the case for police investigations of what people do between the sheets.
“Same-sex marriage,” wrote Maggie Gallagher in National Review, “asks religious Americans,” by which she means Christian Americans, “to surrender a core belief — not only Leviticus (disapproval of gay sexual acts), but Genesis (the idea that God himself made man as male and female and commanded men and women to come together in a special way to image the fruitfulness of God).” But Christians are surrendering nothing. They remain free to disapprove of homosexuality just as they remain free to disapprove of their neighbor’s alcoholism or adultery or bad taste in lawn ornaments. They also remain free to move to a country that enforces religious views.
You should read the entire article. It is well-written and lays out exactly why the arguments against gay marriage are bullshit, and also likens those who would seek to make America a “Christian Nation” to the Taliban and Axis of Evil member, Iran. Now you know that conservatives hate that.
And to those who would argue that gay marriage is a slippery slope which will lead to man-dog unions, pull your head out of your ass. Marriage is a contract. (Civil marriage is the only thing at issue in these gay marriage kerfluffles though the anti-gay crowd apparently doesn’t understand the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage.) There are rules regarding who may enter into valid contracts. Those who are younger than 18 may not enter into valid contracts. And you can bet your ass that a dog cannot enter into a valid contract either. DOGS DON’T EVEN HAVE OPPOSABLE THUMBS!
Now, for those who would argue that gay marriage might lead to polygamy—again, pull your head out of your ass. Marriage is a contract subject to laws of contracts. Parties may not enter into contracts that are against public policy. Since we, as a society, already condemn polygamy, you can bet your ass that any marriage contract attempted by more than 2 individuals would be void as against public policy.
That’s a little bit of legal mumbo jumbo for you, dear reader. It’s all true. Trust me. I’m a lawyer.
It all boils down to this: Pull.Your.Head.Out.Of.Your.Ass.
Posted in Culture Critic, Political Shenanigans
Tagged civil rights, conservatives, gay marriage, gay rights, gay stuff, LGBTQ, New York Post
