If you are my age, you will recall the many liberals and moderates in the 1980s who were not exactly pro-Communist but who were opposed to those who actually oppose Communism: the anti-anti-Communism crowd.
Among the establishment candidates, Ohio’s Gov. John Kasich is emerging clearly as the anti-anti-gay marriage candidate. On CNN’s State of the Union, Dana Bash asked him whether Rubio’s and Walker’s opposition to abortions in the case of rape and incest would make them “unelectable” against a Democrat who supports abortion with no exceptions.
Kasich decided to gratuitously, for no apparent reason, use his answer to communicate his distaste for doing anything in response to the Supeme Court’s gay marriage ruling:
Well, I think that it’s an important issue, but I think there’s many other issues that are really critical, early childhood, infant mortality, the environment, education. I think we focus too much on just one issue. And now that the issue of gay marriage is kind of off the table, we’re kind of down to one social issue, you know?
To those who followed his interviews in response to Obergefell (see the ‘F’ we gave him on our report card), Kasich’s desire to move on and do nothing about the Left’s new aggressiveness against supporters of traditional marriage is not exactly news. But his desire to insert it into a conversation about abortion is striking confirmation: he’s giving a dog whistle to the Left on gay rights. They have a passive friend in a Kasich presidency.
Maggie Gallagher is a senior fellow at American Principles in Action.
15 comments
Well, I think that it’s an important issue, but I think there’s many
other issues that are really critical, early childhood, infant
mortality, the environment, education. I think we focus too much on just
one issue. And now that the issue of gay marriage is kind of off the
table, we’re kind of down to one social issue, you know?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMjH3eUF0ng
@William Luse
” If men and women join in marriage, then men and men, in all honesty, ought to call whatever it is they do by a different name.”
It is called marriage. You don’t have a monopoly on that term. My church, state, country, family and community call it marriage. Poor Billy Old Boy, no one cares what you think!
@William Luse jk105
You wrote: “When you dilute the meaning of a word by expanding its definition to cover arrangements it cannot possibly cover….”
Your words.
You either can’t read your own words, or you are a straight-forward liar. No wonder your marriage is so feeble.
If we must have a nemesis, best it be a fool like you.
@Clark
“That civil contract is what this is about.”
Licences and contracts, oh my. I’ve always thought it was a vow of exclusive fidelity taken between man and woman that made the marriage. The civil contract is the state’s taking cognizance of that fact. The contract doesn’t create the marriage; the marriage necessitates the civil contract. The state is of course free to subscribe to a perverted understanding of marriage, and to recognize whatever sorts of arrangements they like under that name. But it does not create a marriage, any marriage at all, ever. So the huge question being begged here is: What is a marriage? If men and women join in marriage, then men and men, in all honesty, ought to call whatever it is they do by a different name.
“Churches are free to do what they want…”
For now. We’ll see what the future holds.
jk105
– You are the one who said my marriage “dilutes” your marriage. –
I’ve figured out one of your problems. You can’t read.
@William Luse jk105
My God, my country, my state and my family say it exists. Don’t flatter yourself into thinking your opinion counts. The because Billy Old Boys says so argument is unconvincing. Continue howling at the moon–though it won’t change the fact that I am married.
You are the one who said my marriage “dilutes” your marriage. You are the one who is whimpering about how lame your marriage has become. Seek professional help. Your poor wife.
jk105
Your marriage is not a threat to my marriage, because yours doesn’t exist.
@William Luse jk105
“There’s a big difference. When you dilute the meaning of a word by expanding its definition to cover arrangements it cannot possibly cover..”
It covers my arrangement just fine. Most Americans agree.
“you weaken the unique value of the institution to which the word refers.”
It actually adds value to its uniqueness.
Evade a point? “No heterosexual couple ever got married in gratitude for the fact that homosexuals couldn’t.” I never made that point, which even true, does not make an argument in favor of banning same-sex marriage.
My same-sex marriage is what happened naturally. You have no monopoly on that.
I am legally and religiously married. It was performed in my church, by my pastor, in front of friends and family. It is recognized by my state, my country, my community and my God. We are married even though you don’t think we are.
@William Luse jk105 “I would just point out that if this “marriage” is to a same-sex spouse, you’re not really married. You just think you are.”
You are free to believe this and I would fight for your right to do so. However, the state licenses gay couples to marry and according to the state, @jk105 is indeed married, with all of the benefits and privileges that marriage provides. That civil contract is what this is about. Churches are free to do what they want, preach what they want and marry whom they want.
jk105
The title of her article is “(How) Will Gay Marriage Weaken Marriage as a Social Institution,” not how gay marriage will weaken *her* marriage. There’s a big difference. When you dilute the meaning of a word by expanding its definition to cover arrangements it cannot possibly cover, you weaken the unique value of the institution to which the word refers. Heterosexual marriage retains this value because it gives birth to all of society, including homosexuals.
But both you and Clark have evaded my main point, which is that heterosexual marriage does not exist at the expense of homosexuals. No heterosexual couple ever got married in gratitude for the fact that homosexuals couldn’t. Marriage is what happens when men and women do what comes naturally.
“Of course La Gallagher fails to tells us why her heterosexual marriage is so weak that my marriage threatens it.”
There you go again. I would just point out that if this “marriage” is to a same-sex spouse, you’re not really married. You just think you are.
@William Luse Well, when you go around the country fighting the rights of same sex couples to marry and using language like “protect marriage”, it follows from your argument that somehow including this group would harm or weaken the institution as it exists. So yes, that’s what she was up to.
@William Luse
@William Luse
Actually in 2004 Maggie Old Girl wrote a whole article claiming my marriage to a same-sex spouse weakens her heterosexual marriage.
Look it up: UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS
LAW JOURNAL
FALL 2004 VOLUME 2 NUMBER 1
Symposium
Federal Marriage Amendment: Yes or No?
(How) Will Gay Marriage Weaken
Marriage as a Social Institution:
A Reply to Andrew Koppelman
Maggie Gallagher
Of course La Gallagher fails to tells us why her heterosexual marriage is so weak that my marriage threatens it. More than likely she blames other people for her own problems. Pretty sad.
Maggie, you had well over a decade to make a convincing case that excluding gay people from marriage would strengthen heterosexual marriages. You failed. Miserably. This is what that looks like. Welcome to a world where gay people are full citizens of this country. Unlike abortion, this issue will die away now that there’s legal resolution.
It is fun watching you squirm and stomp your feet, though.
Ohio’s Gov. John Kasich is emerging clearly as the anti-anti-gay marriage candidate.
Wow, a Republican with the moral backbone to stand up against the bigots in his own party. I admire the man! Thanks Maggie Old Girl, for pointing this out.
Meanwhile, you belch about “Left’s new aggressiveness against supporters of traditional marriage.” Cute, coming from someone who would use the brute force of government to deny gay couples the right to legally recognized marriages. Maggie Old Girl, you are addicted to government aggression.
Comments are closed.