Tom McClintock sent the following email to more than 50,000 conservative and libertarian supporters across the nation urging their help in winning back the 52nd Congressional District by supporting Carl DeMaio.
With Tom’s help, the national grassroots are being activated to ensure success in 2014!
Please share the letter below with your contacts – and consider helping Carl DeMaio today. If you know of Carl already, you know why we have to get him elected to Congress!
-Tom
———————————————————————–
A MESSAGE FROM CONGRESSMAN TOM McCLINTOCK
Dear Friends:
Have you heard about the San Diego city librarian who is pulling in a government pension of $234,000 a year?
Well, let me tell you about an amazing leader who stepped forward to stop that kind of gross abuse of taxpayer money.
I met Carl DeMaio a decade ago when he helped uncover the California financial mess. Carl went on to help uncover the pension crisis in San Diego. Instead of simply pointing out the problems, Carl took action.
Carl took a stand against “pension spiking” and wrote a sweeping citizens ballot measure to close the San Diego Pension Program and switch city employees to a a 401k retirement – no better and no worse than the taxpayers receive! Carl’s sweeping pension reform plan won an overwhelming 65% vote and created a national model.
Now – Carl is running for Congress in the 52nd Congressional District. He’s taking on liberal tax and spend Democrat Scott Peters – and this is a top ten targeted seat for Republicans. Carl is running on a promise to introduce sweeping pension reform legislation in Congress.
But make no mistake about it.
Because Carl is a national leader against outrageous government pension payouts, the government labor unions are going after him.
He needs our help – and I’m asking you to contribute to his campaign today!
I am proud to be supporting Carl as he is fully prepared to take his pension reform initiative to Washington and get our nation back on a path to financial prosperity.
Join me in supporting Carl DeMaio for Congress by making a donation to his campaign using this link.
It is absolutely critical that we as a nation choose the right leadership so we can avoid experiencing a Detroit debt crisis at the national level.
If you care about our nation – if you care about California – you cannot sit on the sidelines. This race is far too important.
Can I count on your to help me get Carl to our Capitol?
Tom McClintock
United States Congressman, 4th District
Comments 47
We all have those moments…usually Saturday or Sunday morning. It begins to crystalize….then it hits..
“Sh&%!….I did what???”
Tom McClintock is surely having one of those moments…
Let’s see how long it takes for nation-wide conservative groups to rethink Tom McClintock. The clock is ticking just how long it will take him to resend this hasty and poorly reached endorsement.
Watch for a cascade of major Republican-supporting organizations renounce their support for him in the coming days…Eagle Forum will be pulling their support for McClintock post haste, as others are anticipated as well.
Founding Father – Most of your posts have been silly, in a desperate attempt to attack DeMaio and promote your candidate.
But you lose ALL credibility when you attack Tom McClintock.
Tom is the unquestioned conscience of California conservatives. And he’s in a safe seat with overwhelming support.
Yes, Founding Father, this is your “jumped the shark” moment on the SDROSTRA blog.
You came out of the woodwork and in the last few weeks you have attacked Carl DeMaio, Kevin Faulconer, Tony Krvaric, Jerry Sanders, and the most active supporters of our candidates and causes in San Diego.
You certainly can say what you want, and no doubt you will continue to.
But your objective is clear: attack and “renounce” (your word above) anyone who does not 100% agree with you or support your chosen candidate.
Good luck winning enthusiastic supporters with this method.
Well, I guess everyone on here had to start at some point…It’s so nice to be so readily recognized….thank you for the “hat tip.” 🙂
(tears well up…”I’d like to thank the academy…”)
Yet, as silly as they are, you felt compelled to attack them….first thing Sunday morning….Hum…That speaks volumes to your/their vulnerability.
More accurate would be to “illuminate and challenge.” But if you are in the business of protecting the establishment and maintaining the comfort and provision of those you support, then I can see why the visceral and caustic reaction. Very predicable.
Your response only confirms that.
But, I guess if your wheelhouse is being “nudged” and the powers that be see a problem or concern because they and their insider-base ball intimidation (oh, and those of you in the know, know to what I refer) are being highlighted and referenced, well I guess those would be considered “attack and renounce.”
Mr. McClintock made a deliberate decision to support a candidate. We can actually measure how silly it is, and my referencing of it, when he faces the ramifications of that decision…you keep “jumping the shark”….I’ll keep “illuminating and challenging” the status quo and those that have become just a little too comfortable with it.
I believe instead of SD Rostra being a place where a select few sit in a mutual admiration society and “unanimously” support the Party Bosses, I and others are actually exercising the true intention of the original Rostrum. Yet, that frightens you…(grin emerges)
In our OODA loop—and you are one cycle behind! 🙂
It’s no secret that I am not a big fan of DeMaio, but let’s stop tiptoeing around the obvious and say it clearly: Founding Father and Betrayed Before (nice AC/DC comment) oppose DeMaio because he is gay, plain and simple. I find that repulsive.
HQ and others:
The jury was out for us for a bit, but based on the reaction we’ve had, including emails, the questionable reader comment and attempts at clarifying and interpreting it were taken down, regardless of what may have been meant.
To be clear, some of the reaction was from Kirk Jorgensen supporters, thinking the reference was purposeful or placed by a troll, so as to implicate his campaign or his supporters for the comment. We’d suggest Jorgenson supporters think about how their comments may reflect on their own candidate.
Don’t even go there about censorship. Our blog, our decision — no different than a newspaper selecting which letters to the editor to run … but VERY unlike a newspaper we allow most anything as long as legal and within the bounds of good taste. We determined it didn’t meet the muster.
The commenters may post their comments again, but without the innuendo. We’ve used our best judgment in this. If you don’t like it, please go somewhere else.
DeMaio’s gay???
Seriously…HQ…5 days, 4 hours, and 22 minutes before someone was going to accuse me, or anyone else opposing DeMaio on the issues as “homophobic.”…how predictable.
What is repulsive is your immediate and crass attempt to bin me, or anyone else into such an absurd and deliberately charged slur. I didn’t write anything of the sort…shame on you!
I will not vote for DeMaio…not because he is gay…because he is weak…on the issues, as a Republican, and a viable retort to Peters in 14′. If Richard Grennell were running, I’d certainly support him over DeMaio.
Stop the ad hominem attacks…I though you were better than that!!
Gosh, I leave for one afternoon to do a guest appearance ice-sculpter gig for a buddy for some homeless children in Tijuana…and I miss all the drama.
In all candor, hats off to the Rostra monitors for making the call. I am not sure how I got lumped in, but I guess “illuminating and challenging” just doesn’t settle well with some. I didn’t see the posts, so not sure what was precisely said. In any case, thanks for making it “right.”
HQ…do you want a hug? You are disagreed with, but still loved… 🙂
FF,
If I have misjudged you and your reasons for disliking Mr. DeMaio, I apologize, but please tell me which of the Republican issues he is weak on. Is it his position opposing unions, his position opposing guaranteed public pensions, his position favoring lower taxes, his position favoring smaller government or is it his position favoring his right to marry the man he loves?
HQ,
Your gracious apology is accepted. For what it is worth…your stock went up today!
OK- Great questions– (Mr. Rider, and Erik, you may turn off your computers now…this will actually take some “reading” to absorb)
I think the way you laid it out…Mr. DeMaio sounds swell…but all Republicans should be for that. Nothing unique there.
(Let’s tackle your last part last..shall we?)
However, I do not believe any of that above translates to the key factor we need desperately for the 52CD…L E A D E R S H I P !!! True, tested and honed leadership, without all the political chicanery. DeMaio does not exude that for me…at all, nor does Scott Peters. My preference would be Kirk Jorgensen. He has displayed and articulated conviction for the things we need our federal elected officials to care about and fight for.
He is NOT a career politician with his search radar on for the “next” self-aggrandizing position.
He is not indebted to any establishment insiders. He wasn’t at the big secret meeting…he doesn’t get to speak at the RPSDC meetings when his presumptive opponent does. He appears to continue to raise considerable money and receive key endorsements DESPITE the hurdles and obstacles presented either directly or tacitly by establishment powers.
He doesn’t come with excess political and former election baggage. He is a much smaller target.
He is dogmatic about repealing Obama Care-His wife is a doctor, and his insight on this is astute.
He is a veteran and former defense business consultant. He doesn’t “play” to the industry and thousands of families and members here in San Diego…he IS one…and he has used their products…he “gets” the largest non-commercial industry in SD…as it relates to jobs, support, care, treatment, better equipment, deployment paces and impact on families, etc…he has literally “been there and done that.”
His unique qualifications as a former CIA Operations officer tell me a couple of things.
1) he was vetted and entrusted to carry out some of our nation’s most sensitive assignments…in very dangerous places…against some very dangerous people…no “breakdowns” or panic attacks for him…he has literally been tested under fire. His character is (relatively speaking) immaculate.
…and B) he has a grasp of the most serious threat to our nation in a generation; Islamic Jihadist terror. He doesn’t have to “Google it” to answer questions from constituents, media, or the armed service committee.
After Benghazi, we need people who inherently understand what was transpiring that night in the representation positions…not the “slickest, smartest, savviest, most hip” politicians…we had them…Obama, Hillary, Susan Rice, Panetta…they ALL failed the “3-oClock in the morning” test…and 4 great Americans, two of which many in San Diego were acquainted with, lost there lives that night…he gets that!
He is, I understand, a devoted family man…well respected in his community, his church, and his business relations…I know some people who have worked with/for him…they laud his praises and know him as an honorable, decent, and respected man.
I can not stress this enough- I D O N O T S P E A K for Mr. Jorgensen, simply because I speak about him! But, as a dedicated family man, and faith- conscientious husband and father, I believe he would have a great respect, understanding, and empathy for tens-of-thousands of families across SD that have concerns about family issues, values, and convictions, where Mr. DeMaio may not.
Neither Jorgensen or DeMaio will be placed in a position (any time soon) where either would need to politically confront DOMA, or Roe-v Wade…that is the political reality…and that needs to be considered…however, if I choose, I choose someone who understands my concerns, my challenges, my boundaries (for example; on what is presented to my children in school, by whom, and to what end.) One may not agree with that concern, but one needs to have clarity that it is of great concern for many families.
That is a moral conviction…Mr. DeMaio is absolutely entitled and provided the right to express his conviction. I, and Mr. Jorgensen for that matter, have fought for Mr. DeMaio to do just that. However, I would have a question for DeMaio supporters within the 52CD that claim to be republican…we know what thousands have expressed is their understood definition of marriage (one-man/one-woman)…I would ask..
“What is the precise definition of marriage as defined by Mr. DeMaio and his New Generation supporters?”
Again, I do not know precisely what Mr. Jorgensen’s position is on this…being that he is honorable and well respected, I can only surmise what that might be (i.e. not a hypocrite, where he says and acts one way, but votes and politically aligns himself in another) However, when it comes to Mr. DeMaio, though he has expressed what marriage is not…(i.e. not strictly between a man and a woman)…he has not, nor am I aware of any Gay advocates that have defined what marriage is? For me, whether I support Mr. DeMaio, his partner, and others to marry “the man/woman they love” or not…where does that definition end?
I don’t know!. That is not a rhetorical, gotcha, debate-slamming question. I really do not know. Nor do millions of other Americans that thought they did know just a year or two ago.
So. if you haven’t fallen asleep…that is why I am not a supporter of Mr. DeMaio…because frankly, I, and many in the 52CD are rapidly discovering, we can do better.
I hope that “illuminated” more than challenged.
FF,
You do an excellent job of supporting your candidate, but if you are willing to take some unsolicited advice, I suggest you should leave it at supporting him and stop criticizing DeMaio. I say that for two main reasons:
1. Your criticism of his lack of leadership doesn’t ring true – I do not agree with all of the places his leadership has taken us, but whether it is taking away public pensions, stopping tax increases or fighting against everything union, DeMaio has been a leader and everyone knows that.
2. The Gay Marriage issue – You spent the last 5-6 paragraphs of your response on this issue so it is obviously important to you, but it is more important to people who are gay or have gay relatives and/or close friends.
Ask yourself why Republicans do so poorly with Hispanics; Republican ideals should be a perfect fit for the majority of Hispanics yet the vast majority always vote Democratic. This is because the vast majority of Hispanics have a relative or personal friend who lives here undocumented and when you want to deport someone’s grandmother, they really don’t care about the rest of the conversation.
The same is becoming true when it comes to Gay rights. As more people feel comfortable coming out of the closet, more “mainstream” Americans are realizing that they have a brother, sister, son, daughter and/or personal friend who is gay and when the conversation starts with telling them that their son shouldn’t have the same rights as everyone else…
Wow…I could maybe say “I’m sorry I asked”….but I had no idea this election was a “sexual orientation” issue. I am from the Palm Springs area where the matter is moot, but no one defines me!!! If my comment was morphed into other than an age -old use of a term for conflicting energy, it is regretable…..I still look forward to hearing the Voting issues from both sides. Hopefully that is what any other undecided would want.
HQ,
Point of clarity- I do not “dislike” Mr. DeMaio…I simply do not agree with him. I see too much baggage and political ballast associated with him. I feel we will see a repeat of the mayor’s race if he were to tee off with Mr. Peters in the 52CD. Peters is SO vulnerable…and for me, Mr. DeMaio is as well.
OK- Membership, my friend, is NOT leadership…to “go along to get along” is not leadership. Being a good politician is NOT leadership (as painfully witnessed by the Benghazi fiasco)…I have been blessed to being both directed by and serving with remarkable leaders…for me, and we can certainly disagree, Mr. DeMaio does not express, exude, or portray that for me…and “no” not because he is gay…Alexander was gay…it is because I believe there is much more politician there, and much less leader.
As for the other issue, it is not that it is so “important” as you say…as witnessed in the flurry of charged comments regarding this subject; it is a delicate subject, though like any other, needs a full and salient explanation with reason and critical arguments. Not one based on emotion, rhetoric, or charged and demonizing accusations.
Though we may be in agreement about Hispanics and the Republican Party, we must be clear that that encompasses a large swath or constituents and residents (both legal, and otherwise), especially here in California…The other issue encompasses what…reported as perhaps less than 2% of the population. It has been hyperbolized by opposite factions that have raised it way beyond its effect of the actual voting populace. We can agree or disagree on the merits of the classic argument between “rights” versus behavior. Some see the issue as a fundamental right, many others see it as a behavioral issue that, like many other behaviors, is not in and of itself a “right” to do or “be” anything. However, speaking for myself…and ONLY for myself, I am still at a loss when I hear the retort of “they should be able to marry who they want…” That, my friend, is a completely different argument, and one I believe many who may have supported Prop 8 saw as the natural “slippery” slope argument that clearly creates a different construct for society as it was founded and built on the fundamental DNA of the nuclear family.
Again, I would ask you, and other advocates as Mr. DeMaio may advocate…What is your present operating definition of marriage? We know what it is not…please (as I am looking to be illuminated)…what is it now?
Oh oh.
I predict Founding Father will now attack Chairman Darrell Issa as a RINO, etc. for supporting DeMaio.
Issa & CA GOP Delegation Supporting DeMaio with Fundraiser in DC
http://sdrostra.com/?p=35775
“Again, I do not know precisely what Mr. Jorgensen’s position is on this…”
I do..because I actually asked him his position on same sex marriage. He told me that it is an issue for the states. I’ll repeat what I said in another thread— that’s DeMaio’s position.
“being that he is honorable and well respected, I can only surmise what that might be (i.e. not a hypocrite, where he says and acts one way, but votes and politically aligns himself in another)”
I might suggest you meet with Kirk, like I did, and ask him his positions rather than surmising them. He’s quite accessible.
Shark, this raises a very fundamental argument. …worthy of pulling the string on….
What is the position of the RPSDC and the NRCC and the apparent vast rudder steers by prominent former conservatives with regards to supporting a candidate that holds the precise same positions as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid on what were formerly key tenants of the Republican Party?
We can agree or disagree on the merits of the positions, however, it is quite stark and revealing that ostensibly previously held views that were pillars of Republican identity are no longer valued by Messrs Issa, McClintock, McCarthy, key leadership within the RPSDC, CRP, and presumably others…
OK…that’s clarity.
If I am one of the tens-of-thousands of Republicans in the 52CD that are concerned about these issues, even remotely (i.e. it is not a “sole issue” issue), then I am seriously rethinking my support, energy, vigilance, and desire to support an organization that has no “issue” ignoring me (hell, sacrificing me) and my fellow Republicans as they redraw the lines that used to define, in part, the Republican party….the party of Ronald Reagan.
This maybe a pragmatic and cold hard calculation by NRCC/RNC strategists to “widen the aperture” for political expediency and perception of “opening the tent” in an attempt to appear more politically correct and “cool.” I am, as I am confident thousands of others, would appreciate, in fact demand, the leadership state that outright. Tell the Tea-Party, the Patriot Coalitions, and the Freedom Groups that their services are no longer required.
“Republicans” no longer need be in the Republican Party. Out with the “old guard” (how did Mr. DeMaio put it, oh, yes “old white men”) and in with the New Generation.
“Again, I would ask you, and other advocates as Mr. DeMaio may advocate…What is your present operating definition of marriage? ”
The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.
I don’t think HQ shares my definition of marriage but I’m unwilling to deploy force to get him to agree with my definition. Likewise, he is unwilling to call me a bigot for holding to an ecclesiastical definition of marriage because it is one entered to of free will and absent of external coercion.
It’s when we hire the men with guns to impose our will, on what is almost always seen as a voluntary act, that we get into trouble.
BB…My Friend, that was the commonly understood definition of marriage in America for nearly 300 years, and many societies well before that…apparently, not now…OK…It is now being defined as something “other” than that..My question remains, what is it now?
I’m not talking about forcing anything…Are you willing to make the same case applied to injecting an agenda that is contrary to your belief? Transgender bathrooms…gay-lifestyle classes, seminars and sensitivity training for elementary school children? Lawsuits claiming “bigotry” because one’s conviction is diametrically opposed to the government’s new definitions and regulations? Health Care mandates ignoring, even criminalizing, one’s conviction of faith and practices thereof?
How do you see the “government” enforcing the new definitions, BB? New legislation criminalizing conviction and belief, with legal pressure and police action to enforce compliance.
Is “pro-gay” in, and “pro-Faith” out? Are we to accept the notion…”you can believe what you want, you just can’t exercise it?” Is the new “closet” where the faith-convicted voters are supposed to sit?
Are “other-than- traditional marriage” advocates in, and Catholics and Evangelicals out? Are we to pose as Pelosi and Biden in our faith vs political views?
It isn’t rhetorical…I really do not know the answer…do you? Do the leaders of the RPSDC, CRP, and the NRCC know? Have they just not shared it yet?
“I really do not know the answer…do you? ”
I do. Follow the constitution. That’s always the answer.
HQ, whom I typically don’t agree with, has proven himself objective on the DeMaio discussion and torpedoing the KJ cheerleading squad’s complaint of lack of “L E A D E R S H I P !!!”. DeMaio has been at the forefront of leadership with fixing fiscal issues in San Diego. The Prop D sales tax in 2010 would have had a much better chance of passing without DeMaio. Pension Reform (2012) would never have even made the ballot without Carl. The argument that he doesn’t lead is just a smokescreen to conceal your contempt for him being gay, and is as believable as Fletcher’s narrative of thoughtfully becoming a liberal Democrat.
KJ has zero chance of winning that congressional seat. Zero. He’s not a bad guy, but he will not make the run off and even if he did, he cannot beat Peters. Your enthusiasm for him is commendable, but you can trash Carl all you want and it won’t make a difference for the KJ campaign which will conclude in June.
And finally, do you really think McClintock is going to retract his endorsement? Do you really think McClintock is in any danger of losing his seat and his national Republican support? While most of your posts are a bit misguided, I can admire your passion. But saying these things about McClintock puts you beyond left field and more along the lines of a crazy person. Perhaps maybe you are the one thinking…. “Sh&%!….I did what???”
Best.
McClintock has “leaned Libertarian” for years. I believe he’s a social conservative and votes that way, yet the social issues for him have often taken a back seat to pure fiscal policy. Given DeMaio was one of the few local government electeds in a major CA city vocally pushing fiscal reform, it’s not a surprise his efforts would be recognized by McClintock when the former ran for mayor and before. So, DeMaio is a known entity to McClintock. This is not a knock on Jorgensen, but all of it adds up to McClintock’s endorsement not really being a surprise given his penchant for fiscal matters first and foremost. I have no doubt social conservatives will try to convince McClintock of this being a mistake, but they’ll be spinning their wheels, I’m convinced.
That out of the way, I can see how social conservatives are disappointed in McClintock, without really understanding his overall view of the world. But, the thought that he fears losing conservative support over this is quite laughable.
Well, I have spent a good portion of my day reading all the blogs and entries that I could access. What a cesspool of raw garbage. There appears to be a tight hold on the Republican Party in San Diego that is dominated by the Libertarian agenda, and Liberation Theology. Sad! Of course the root of these lables is “lbertine”……That is not the Republican party that I support nor worked for through so many years. Betrayed again!!! My survey of the various characters permits me to laud Kirk Jorgensen as the last bastion of decency left in the pack. But I am sure of one thing, God will not be mocked!!!! Sooner or later San Diego’s Republicans will realize they have sold their souls for a mess of pottage. No need to name names; you know who you are, and worst of all, you have no shame. The word “conservative” in San Diego appears to start with Big Letters (eg:) CON !!
Just to hammer home the ridiculousness of questioning DeMaio’s ability to lead, recall that immediately after being elected in 2008, he became the first City Councilmember to refuse the City’s lavish pension. The present value of this benefit over 2 terms I believe was appraised at roughly a million dollars. Since then, Faulconer, Zapf, Kersey and Scott Sherman all have followed Carl’s lead by declining this benefit.
One additional thought.
I note only two comments on a post about an endorsement Kirk Jorgensen received:
http://sdrostra.com/?p=35753
Knowing what I know about Jorgensen, I’m really sure he’s not one to be asking his supporters to spend a great deal of time doing anything other than focusing on the positive aspects of his campaign and message.
Granted, this is a post about a McClintock endorsement, so it may resonate a bit more, thus causing a flurry of comments, but it was just a thought.
FF,
I’ve seen your last several posts that basically state that if someone doesn’t support a conservative activist government on social issues then by default they must be a supporter of a liberal/progressive activist government. Or simpler: If your not for Santorum then your with Pelosi.
I believe this is a false dichotomy. You assume that the only choices are a big government going either to the left or to the right. I believe the choice is between a big government that can impose social values and a government that shouldn’t be there at all.
The recent Supreme Court case was lose-lose for me because it didn’t decentralize power and take away the government’s power to define marriage. This was a power that was traditionally reserved for families arranging the marriage, or the churches officiating it, or the individuals entering into it. That’s what traditional marriage was for thousands of years – it was not a government venture. Today’s debates of government subsidized families and the social engineering associated with it is a very, very modern view.
As I see it marriage existed BEFORE government so why is government needed to enforce it now? The traditional form of marriage became the accepted way of family because it was the optimal way to live and organize.
I believe by living my life with a traditional family I set the example for others to follow. As a former military officer you know leadership is far more effective by example than by throwing UCMJ around. Why do you think social issues should managed differently by using government power?
PS – Can we stop throwing a mythical interpretation of Reagan around? He’s not the social conservative people pretend he was. He legalized abortion in California, put Sandra Day O’Conner on the Supreme Court, and was consistently criticized by the Religious Right for not appointing who they wanted to any court or federal position. I see his stances on issues like AIDS and LGBT rights as consistently libertarian – he didn’t push for any policies and thought the government shouldn’t have any programs or policies on those issues. If you could list what great socially conservative legislation he pushed (and his speech in the 1980 election to the Religious Right on abortion, although inspiring and a great way to get votes from born-again Jimmy Carter, doesn’t count as a law) I’m willing to change my views based on new evidence.
FF,
Though the number of gay men and women may be relatively small, the number who have friends and family who are gay is not. And for most of these people, wanting to deny equal rights to those friends and family members is a deal breaker.
As for the definition of marriage, I think Brian Brady said it well up to the word “spouses.” Now substitute “two adults” for “a man and a woman” and you have your definition.
Steve Rider,
To be clear, I do think DeMaio is an effective leader. I also think his leadership is, for the most part, taking us in the wrong direction.
“There appears to be a tight hold on the Republican Party in San Diego that is dominated by the Libertarian agenda, and Liberation Theology”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg0Axyvlkm0
I suppose we are simply returning to the Party of Reagan.
Elliot Schroeder – you are were I am as well. I so wish the government would simply “get out of” the marriage business.
But the problem is that it isn’t. There are 30,000+ references to marriage in the federal code alone. I believe something like 2000+ “rights, privileges, and responsibilities” that legally flow from said arrangement. At that point I just can’t see how CONSERVATIVES would do anything else than embrace the equal protection clause and side with advocates of recognizing same-sex marriages.
And the fact pattern SCOTUS case I think highlighted starkly the issue. It just seems blatantly unfair that that the plaintiff had to pay a high death tax rather than a lower one. Far better no one would pay but until that day passes I just think you have to be on the side of saying that same sex couples have the right to wed and receive these 2000+ rights, privileges and responsibilities.
Erik: “you are were I am as well.” Huh?
LOL…Gotta avoid posting till the coffee kicks in. …Far better use of the mother tongue would be……
“I am in a similar place on this issue as you are ”
😉
T.A,
I think all Erik was missing is an “h.” Where, not were.
Ahhh, should have picked up on what he was layin’ down. What the h.
Equal…can we find a definition for that as it relates to the new definitions of marriage?
Are advocates of polygamy included in the “equal” part of equal protection, which would include a major world religion, Islam? Are incestuous relations included under equal protection? The National Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) has made arguments advocating the lowering of the age of consent. Their argument follows the lines if parents can sign authorization for their sons to go join the military under the age of 18, why should they not have the equal right to allow their under age son to marry who he wants?
I don’t think it is about “equal rights.” It is about altering the centuries’ old biblical understanding and formerly western universally recognized definition of marriage as it relates to one man and one woman. It isn’t about whom one can love…I am not aware of any law that says you cannot “love” someone. We have all sorts of laws dictating what acts or behaviors and what socially acceptable and morally palatable constructs are tolerable and intolerable by decent and civil societies. Gay advocates argue their defined behavior allows them to marry the same as heterosexual coupes and should be protected under the law. That is certainly their right and privilege to consider and debate. Why, then, under that logic should polygamy, incest, or consensual pedophilia not be protected under that same law as well?
“I don’t think it is about “equal rights.” It is about altering the centuries’ old biblical understanding and formerly western universally recognized definition of marriage as it relates to one man and one woman”
Married people are treated preferentially under the law through the tax code. I’m all for repealing the 16th Amendment (and the death tax), and returning to indirect taxation by apportionment but let’s face it, unmarried people have a legitimate gripe here.
I suppose I can such a high opinion of traditional marriage that I don’t need to rely on rent-seeking to see that institution continue.
So are disabled vets and Medal of Honor Winners, Homeowners, The “Green” conscious, child-bearers, and students preferentially treated. There are certain priorities and incentives a society places on certain relations, positions, and how they fundamentally add value to the society as a whole. We have done it through the tax code, presumably because we, as a society, wanted to incentivize it.
Marriage, as the recognized building block for procreation and societal structure, has been indentified to perhaps encourage and support relationships that contribute to the value of society as it was defined under the Judeo-Christian ideals as recognized by the Founders.
Shall we now provide those same incentives for polygamists, incestuous, and NAMBLA/consenting pedophiles, in additional to others that wish to be equally protected under the law?
“There are certain priorities and incentives a society places on certain relations, positions, and how they fundamentally add value to the society as a whole. We have done it through the tax code, presumably because we, as a society, wanted to incentivize it.”
Military benefits are compensation for a job well done. The rest of your citations is a tu quoque fallacy.
:… it was defined under the Judeo-Christian ideals as recognized by the Founders.:
Which article of the constitution, or subsequent amendments, recognizes a definition of marriage?
“Shall we now provide those same incentives for polygamists, incestuous, and NAMBLA/consenting pedophiles, in additional to others that wish to be equally protected under the law?”
Non sequitur. Why don’t you focus on the real problems: jurisdiction and the kleptocracy the tax code produces? Otherwise, I see a fight between two factions of people (pro-SSM and pro-traditional marriage) who are relying on force rather than persuasion to impose their will.
My goodness…what country did you grow up in? Are you one of those secular-revisionists that insist our Judeo-Christian values played NO role in our birth and forging of our nation, NOR the Constitution? A wonderful reference to confirm and source this widely accepted precept is the American Patriots Bible by Thomas Nelson. The beginning has a well sourced and well referenced section defining the 7 Principles of the Judeo-Christian Ethic…given your apparent lack of, or refusal of, the impact of that ethic, it would be a terrific reference for you.
Or, are you one of those narrow perspective types that are so dogmatic on the constitution that constitutes our State/governance, but dismisses the history, cultural, and values of the unique American experience and the forging of America the Nation? Even the Constitution references the preeminence of Our Creator…and there is no reference to it being a solely legal construct…those rights, the one we are exercising at this very moment were endowed by that very Creator…or did not not catch that reference in the Constitution?
Military “benefits” are NOT for a job well done..they are for a myriad of things…hardship, expediency, efficiency, and unique support to people, families that are expected to endure situations and events the non-military citizens are not subjected to in the defense of our nation. We provide them because we put value on their service…because without it, we are vulnerable and defenseless. NOT because they are “swell” or doing a job “no one else will do.”
It is non-sequitur apparently to those who clearly cannot or will not comprehend the real and pervasive issue with a construct beyond recognized marriage as defined by our national, historical, cultural, and moral compass that IS the Judeo-Christian ethic…you may ignore it, be ignorant of it, and even try to deny it…however it still exists, and that makes it quite “sequitur.”
The issue clearly is…since the definition of marriage is no longer between one man/one woman, it now opens the proverbial Pandora’s box as to what marriage can be interpreted to be…it opens to greater social depravity, and the continuing slide of our moral and social values…Again…VERY Sequitur.
How far have we depreciated in our moral and ethical understandings when the universally recognized Judeo-Christian Ethic of which this Great Nation was founded is questioned or even minimized all in the name of “Constitutional” lexical purity.
It’s very sad….and as cautioned by the Founders…how dangerous.
Leaderless your point on government providing preferences to groups as an example that it is justified for other groups is exactly the point we are making. Why are these preferences being made? Who makes these decisions? Are they even doing what they say they would?
Now if the US government no longer provided all the benefits to marriage like Erik said in his post do you think gays would be fighting for gay marriage? If the government no longer subsidized straight couples, allowed exclusionary hospital visitations, dictated survivorship rules and pensions would there be any incentive for gays to wed?
All of the SSM legal arguments aren’t based on prejudice or values or love its that the legal and tax code system disenfranchises them in thousands of areas. If the law didn’t do that gay couples would have no case and probably would care less about getting a piece of government paper that says “marriage” on it. Viola the “demand” for SSM ends when there is no supply of subsidies and perks provided by the government that you are so adamant about keeping.
Ironically, the “Christian Left,” who coveted what is Caesar’s, tried to use government to achieve Christian aims have shot themselves in the foot. They created a massive machine for enforcing values on this great nation. Some of it was bad like slavery (originally justified with Biblical verses), some of it crazy like prohibition, some of it good like abolition and freedom of religion. But all that was needed was the emplacement of people in key parts of the government and the steering wheel of the Christian machine would be turned against Christians and other freedom-loving Americans. This isn’t theory or a warning, this is what happened in the 1960s.
As Reagan said in the link Brian posted its Conservatives that want to roll back government. But the self-described “Religious Right” just want the steering wheel back to the big machine. They think if they get behind the wheel again we will all live happily ever after. I think that if we keep the big machine around there is very good chance down the road that another generation even more hostile than the hippies may soon get the wheel. Its just better for Christians and Americans to dismantle the machine.
“Its just better for Christians and Americans to dismantle the machine”
Leaderless, I agree with that statement fully and permit me to explain why: We want to limit government because its expansion encroaches on the very institutions which work (and I hold dear). As government expands, the role of churches, non-profits,and civic associations, the civil institutions which deTocqueville described in “Democracy in America”, are perpetually weakened.
Don’t believe me? Look at the Catholic Church. When I was growing up, we used to point to Catholic hospitals, schools, universities, soup kitchens, our parish counselors, and say “I built that”.
Johnson’s Great Society certainly did violence to that. When Obama muttered “you didn’t build that” last year, he wasn’t altogether incorrect.
It’s not just the Catholic Church. Most churches and synagogues have lost the influence they had on civil society since then. What started as a good enough idea, channeling taxpayer money through religious non-profits, like LBJ’s Great Society and Bush’s faith based initiatives, resulted in those very institutions being politicized….and dying.
I absolutely respect heritage and tradition as part of our cultural fabric but I ask you this,”Would same-sex marriage ever have been an issue if religious and civil institutions retained their authority and influence?”
Parish priests, ministers,pastors & rabbis had gravitas decades ago. They truly lived, as Winthrop said when he paraphrased the Sermon on the Mount, like they occupied a “Shining City on a Hill”.
I’m sick of the machine which is desperately trying to level that shining city and replace it with a sterile and uncaring tenement.
I don’t want you to drive the machine. I don’t want to drive the machine. I just want the machine to do the 17 unique, discreet, and specific tasks we’ve authorized it to do.
I trust you to build rebuild the Shining City–and I just want to get the machine out of your way.
Kudos for Brian for a very articulate defense of limited government.
Leaderless – You are getting in the tangles of the equal protection but let me see if I can help.
The advocates of prop 8 TRIED to make the argument that you did – that marriage was fundamentally about procreation and childrearing. If so, then government could have a legitimate justification for providing extraordinary benefits to that class of individuals. As you rightly point out, we provide subsidized loans to “students” and not for auto purchasers and no one would likely try to make an equal protection clause argument on that point.
However, as the trial transcript showed the defendants of prop 8 failed to find evidence on these key claims. First, they failed to show that marriage is exclusively reserved for men and women of child bearing ages. Thousands of times each year in this country men and women in their 50s and 60s get wed. Prop 8 defendents were NOT proposing that these individuals be prohibited from marrying. So the procreation argument was poor sauce.
The child rearing argument was also hard. Without getting into the weeds as to why (since I think the jury still way out because of the relative newness of the phenomena and the low “n’) , there is just no evidence that children raised by same sex couples do worse than children raised by married traditional couples. Without that evidence, the prop 8 supporters could not show why the state had a compelling interest here either.
Once those 2 arguments are out it was a done deal. Honestly decided on the merits should have been 9-0 and would have been with a better path on standing. I am guessing we will get such a ruling soon as we will start to get more equal protection claims as SSM in one state are not recognized by others.
Why I am a conservative is that I PASSIONATELY believe in the equal protection clause. The idea of individuals being treated fairly and the same is foundational to who we are as a country and as Americans.
Very lucid response, Erik. However, I see many are making this about “SSM”..(same sex marriage, I presume)…But for those advocating marriage defined as one man/one woman, the NOT “one-man/one woman” constructs begin a pandora of OTTM (other-than-traditional marriage) perspectives and relationships…
Polygamy.
Incest.
Alteration of Age of Consent…the “can fight for my country with mom’s permission…why can’t I marry the 48 year-old Boy’s gym teacher”
THIS is the problem with “equal” protection…it isn’t..it becomes very muddled, confused, contrived, and frankly, dangerous. Look at the trans-gender arguments being waged for elementary and middle school gym locker rooms and showers. Would any responsible parent honestly want their 12 y/o girl showering with another 12 y/o with a male appendage..really? It’s insane…yet, the box has been opened, and now ALL forms of previously acknowledged socially depraved, maladjusted and deviant behaviors and “lifestyles” are on the table for “equal” protection.
Polygamy will most likely be the next legal/social “taboo” challenged. It has a much stronger, more globally, historically and culturally accepted premise. Muslims, which make up a small percentage in the US, have over a billion followers, and several hundred million of them or in polygamous relationships. (much, much greater than any tiny numbers cited for SSM)
Why not the push for that? There are a hundred times more Muslims than SSM participants the US…where is the push for polygamy? It is because a very small, virulent and highly agitating group decided years ago to have a great and pervasive marketing campaign for SSM. I wonder how many people for SSM are also for polygamy, or incestuous relationships? If it were about “equality”, then one would assume those positions would have been argued for as well…but they weren’t!
It would be easier if we had one recognized definition of marriage to solve that…oh, wait..we did…but that was then…this is now.
Can anyone provide the new definition of marriage now that OM/OW is no longer the standard?
(crickets….crickets..)
Leaderless,
Pick any definition you are comfortable with and then change “one man, one woman” to “two adults.” That is where we are today.
As for “we had one definition of marriage,” you are correct. It was “One man, one woman of the same race and same socioeconomic class requiring the blessing of their parents, if the parents had not actually arranged the marriage.
Societies evolve. Social norms change. That has always been the case and I suspect it always will.
Ah, if it were always that simple. As for the social economic-education situation…that is very much alive today. Even “evolved” dating sites bin by those standards. Heard of “J-Date” or “ChritianMingle”? Socio-ethno-cultural-economic considerations are one of the strongest measures for a marriage relationship.
The incestuous crowd will be very pleased to have “two-adults” for the definition. But I still am not sure why we would “diss” the polygamists…now that we are so evolved, is it considered a hate crime now to not allow Muslims to proactively pursue their religious preferences? What about Mormons?
Leaderless,
I think you missed (or ignored) my point: Societies evolve and norms change. I assume you are accepting of interracial marriage. I doubt your grandparents were.
As of today, polygamy is not accepted in our Country, nor is incest, but I honestly can’t tell you what will be in 20 years, 50 years or 100 years. I just know where we are now.
HQ,
I did receive your point…loud and clear…where I would have a different take is for your use of “evolved”…I would argue “devolved.”
The point is once the lid has been removed on what was the centuries long universally understood definition of marriage (OM/OW) then it is an imperative that the logical variations and multiple combinations within the sliding “norms” will be pursued. SSCs have led the way for each and every possible legal and “civil” argument/deviation that can, and will, be launched all in the name of “equality.”
“Change” is not necessarily an evolution…some norms remain foundational and constant as they have proven valuable and viable for societies for centuries…murder, theft, abductions, lying/cheating have all been universally condemned and shunned throughout virtually all civilized societies…other “changes” are most detrimental for the basic social constructs; drug pervasiveness, children out of wedlock, early teen promiscuity, general grooming and clothing standards (pants hanging off the buttocks, pervasiveness of tattoos and piercings, gang-style pop-culture accoutrements…) None of these changes would be accurately described as “evolution”, would they?
Not all change is good…though it may satisfy a small minority’s need for recognition, acceptance, and “normalization” having felt “rejected” by the societal norm, it isn’t in and of itself a moral imperative (evolution). Unlike racial traits, human behavior and variants of formerly socially shunned and universally accepted taboos are choices (albeit tough and often insatiable choices…but choices nonetheless). Skin color, ethnicity, and cultural traits are not choices. Infidelity is a choice…a behavior. It is becoming more socially acceptable by many people…there are even websites to facilitate it, but no one will bemoan a spouse who levies the full extent of divorce law or wrath against a spouse that cheats. People still see that behavior as damaging to the social construct, the rearing of children, and social/familial and community harmony…and the law can and does discern for spouses who cheat.
Not all change is good….some “norms” remain norms because they have a greater place than the immediate needs, desires, or perceived “inequality” of a very small minority.
Leaderless,
I would go back to that old adage that “you have a right to swing your fist but only up to the point where it hits my nose.” In a free society you should be allowed to do almost anything you want as long as it doesn’t harm another.
In other words, I have no problem with someone who wants tattoos, body piercings or “pants hanging off the buttocks” although I would discourage my children from any of those. On the other hand, I do have a problem with murder, theft and abductions.
The question for you is: Do you want to live in a society where you are free to live the way you choose or one where your actions have to conform to a religious dogma?