32 thoughts on “The Totalitarian Temptation”

1. If a little politics is good, then a lot of politics must be better and thus politicizing every aspect of the human condition must be the best of all.

2. Why the heck are corporations for or against it anyway? This should be left to the individual vote. Corporations can’t get married. FWIW I am against gay marriage. I’m ok if two gay people live together but I don’t call it marriage.

   1. Why the heck are corporations for or against it anyway?

      It’s the purpose of advocacy groups to be for and against things. Many of those groups, at least in the developed world, are corporations in the official sense of the word.

      Chick-Fil-A on the other hand isn’t for or against that. They’re here to sell chicken.

3. Why the heck are corporations for or against it anyway?

   They aren’t, but it sure serves the LGBT political agenda to make people believe otherwise, doesn’t it?

4. Hold up — another one of those Jesus sightings so common at left-wing gatherings…

   1. If Christians has the sensibilities of a certain other religious group, he’d be taking his life in his hands wearing that shirt.

      1. “Allah is a c*nt” shirts are probably harder to find than unicorns.

5. Remember that “hate” is defined in The Hive’s lexicon as “anything contrary to the Hive party-line.”

6. Why isn’t there a significant antistatist movement within the gay activist community? Why is there so little voice from those ranks against the political threats from big-city mayors against Chik-fil-A? Or against SSM on the grounds that the government owns neither marriage nor the English language and therefore lacks the authority to redefine either? (Government fiat over the language has a specific term.) Or against the decades of academic Political Correctness? Or against the notion that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts have the right to adopt belief systems and base membership requirements on complicity with said belief system? (GLIL is a rare exception.) Or Obama’s strangulating economic policies? Did any major gay organizations voice any support for Mark Steyn during his heresy trial before the Canadian Human Rights Commission?

7. In a free market, people have a choice about supporting a product or service with their pocketbook, for whatever reason they personally choose. Back when the Dixie Chicks voiced an opinion that ran against the popular outlook on the Iraq War, people chose to reject their entertainment product. Didn’t bother me, and I’m sure it didn’t bother you. There’s no difference here. It’s capitalism working at its finest.

   1. There’s no difference here. It’s capitalism working at its finest.

      Mayors and aldermen telling a company that it can’t do business in their city or ward is “capitalism working at its finest”? Really?

      1. Actually I’ll agree that they don’t need to do that. They could just give their opinion about it outside of their office.

         1. What do you mean, “they don’t need to do that”? Do you not understand that such behavior is unconstitutional and fascist?

            1. I heard a lot of hot air, but did Chick-Fil-A get stopped from doing anything? Did jackbooted thugs with rainbow armbands march in and close down a franchise?

            2. Well, Dave, how long does it take for such actions to occur? I imagine business licenses are granted or rejected once a year or perhaps even less often in some places. To say it hasn’t happened yet isn’t saying much.

               What we have right now is a number of politicians who claim publicly that they will abuse their power. I think the simple solution is to vote them out at first opportunity before they get much of a chance to do so.

            3. I heard a lot of hot air, but did Chick-Fil-A get stopped from doing anything? Did jackbooted thugs with rainbow armbands march in and close down a franchise?

               So, as long as the fascists don’t actually accomplish their stated goals, it’s OK? Really?

8. On the question of traditional marriage: I don’t know what that means. What I do know is that marriage is a legal contract. When my wife and I got married, it didn’t matter what religious or political entity recognized it, what mattered is that the State of California recognized it. Why? Because it has a legal definition that obligates the two of us with responsibilities toward each other. It also gives us certain rights about making legal decisions for each other in the event of catastrophic illness, visitation rights, etc. It’s a LEGAL contract. Denying this to folks because of some sense of what is “traditioinal” may or may not be “hate”, but it’s wrong. Someone may think that a black person eating next to them at a sandwhich counter isn’t “traditonal” — does that matter from a legal standpoint?

   1. “Traditional” is between a man and a woman — this isn’t that hard.

      Most have no objection to civil contracts between individuals of whatever gender, but the word “marriage” carries a special meaning, sacred to many.

      1. Let the “special meaning” carry to anyone who cares about it. Let the legal definition, responsibilities, and rights apply to any citizen who signs a contract. This isn’t hard.

         1. Yes, it’s so un-hard that it’s always been like that. Power of Attorney gives someone you care for access to everything. That’s not what’s happening here. If it were, then there would be no issue, because everyone who wants to “get married” would do so in Canada. What is happening here is both sad and a lie. Sad, because anyone and anything can inherit. A house pet has gotten almost a quarter BILLION! You (the sad soul questing for “Gay Marriage, etc”) got nothing because you were not in the will. They didn’t want you in the will because they didn’t love you and didn’t care what happened to you once they were done with you. A lie because the other side is not about rights, it’s about perks. Getting on your “partner’s” health care policy from work is not a right, it is a perk. And one very likely to end if the “Gay Marriage” movement is successful, given the state of the Economy. Expect a huge backlash if that happens!

            1. Sorry, getting on your partner’s health policy IS a right, IF you sign the legal contract that obligates you to the rights and responsibilities afforded by marriage. To deny it to people based on their preference is to deny people equal rights.

               To argue that extending this basic right to people will somehow take away your benefits — aside from being selfish — is untrue. Domestic partnerships haven’t had any affect on your benefits, have they?

            2. Please Dave, explain how a private perk by a private company is a Right? There is nothing in the “Marriage Contract” that gives a Right to Health Insurance, which after all, didn’t exist for most of the existence of Marriage. There is nothing in the Employment Contract that gives a Right to Health Insurance. It was a perk created during WWII to deal with wage freezes. People have been employed before WWII, yes?

               Ah, no. Equal rights involve interactions with the Government. Your argument would make it illegal for employers to treat felons differently because of their preference to ignore the law (True, the government is trying to make that illegal, but I think we can both safely say that is crazy).

               Ah, no. Making something more expensive means you will have less of it. The Moving Finger Writes. And how would you know if Domestic partnerships had any affect on benefits? Anyone who admitted to that would be guilty of ThoughtCrime, and ruined. And given the size of the country, and how few people have created “Domestic Partnerships”, the effect will be hard to track. But TANSTAAFL…….

               I note that over nine thousand companies offer Domestic Partnership benefits (Which, as far as I can tell, is more then the couples who have signed up.). It hasn’t had any affect on the quest for Gay Marriage, has it? What a sad quest, for Easy Money and Cheap Virtue…..

9. Why not leave the “special meaning” to those who created the word and the meaning? Why should it be controlled by the Government?

   1. Not controlled, but the Government will always be involved. Heck, it’s probably one of the reasons Humanity created Government in the first place. Marriage is not between a Man and a Woman (Both consenting adults who could sign a contract) it is a Man, a Woman, and the children produced. The children are by definition minors, and not something that can be dealt with by contract law.

   2. Because it has a legal, CONTRACTUAL reason, enforced by the power of law. It can’t be left up to what you think “marriage” means.

10. “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian . . . it is also a sacred union.” — President Barack Obama, August 17, 2008

    1. Haters gonna hate!

    2. He’s changed his opinion on this and set it on the public record. I consider a flexible mind a positive, apparently you don’t.

       1. You’re making it sound like Obama has a mind of his own.

       2. Obama’s mind is flexible alright. So flexible it’s shaped like a pretzel.

          1. Hey, he saw the dollar signs then saw the light — it’s pretty straight-forward.

    3. He says what he thinks his audience wants to here. Liz Warren is now a born again small business person. Do you believe any of this crap?

Comments are closed.