« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Thoughts From Florida On Last Night’s GOP Presidential Debate

The free flowing format Fox News employed in last night’s GOP Presidential Debate was an improvement over CNN’s approach in the last debate, although the moderators went overboard in using the candidates words against them in setting up questions.

Newt Gingrich scored well when he challenged that tactic, calling it “gotcha questions”. There is little doubt that he has the brightest ideas and the best grasp of the workings of government of all the candidates. Gingrich will never win the GOP nomination due to all of his personal baggage, but there’s got to be a role for the man should the Republicans take back the White House in 2012.

Tim Pawlenty tried, and failed, to add a little flavor to the idea that he’s too ‘vanilla’. And the sparring with Michele Bachmann was awkward and did not help him. It’s also a good example of why Sarah Palin would be a tough opponent for Obama to go up against – it’s just not that easy for a man to aggressively challenge a woman without coming across as overbearing and crass.

Which is a shame because Pawlenty had a brilliant line in taking a shot at Romney;

“Where is Barack Obama’s plan on social security reform? Medicare reform? Medicaid reform? In fact, I’ll offer a prize tonight to anybody in this auditorium or anyone watching on television, if you can find Barack Obama’s specific plan on any of those items, I will come to your house and cook you dinner.

Or if you prefer, I’ll come to your house and mow your lawn. But in case Mitt wins, I’m limiting it to one acre. One acre.”

The line of the night, though, was from Rick Santorum directed toward Ron Paul;

“Just because he’s mostly wrong doesn’t mean he’s always wrong.”

As for Ron Paul… do you seriously think you have any chance in this race when you stand before the American people on national television and state that Iran has the right to acquire a nuclear weapon? Really?

Some feel Santorum misstated the true intent of the 10th Amendment, but he made a very valid point when said this country is based on moral law and used the example of a state declaring polygamy legal as an overreach of the 10th Amendment. He made another valid point that was overlooked when he accurately pointed out that America cannot solve it’s debt problem by cutting spending when we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend and refuse to address entitlements that accounts for the other 60%.

The question asked of Michele Bachmann about whether she would be “submissive to her husband” as President has to be the worst question ever in all the history of presidential debates. It was sexist through and through and the crowd immediately recognized that as they booed heartily. It was also indicative of the unfair burden many female candidates have to deal with.

Jon Huntsman just did not have a good answer to some of the positions he holds other than to repeatedly say “I’m proud of my record.” He seemed out of place on that stage.

In summary, there was no real clear winner in last night’s debate, although, as the accepted front runner, Mitt Romney did nothing to detract from that status. Gingrich, Santorum and Bachmann were strong. The loser(s) of the night… Tim Pawlenty and Ron Paul.

A few other parting designations;

Smartest man in the room – Newt Gingrich

Crankiest man in the room – Ron Paul

Most charismatic man in the room – Herman Cain

Most ‘practiced’ man in the room – Mitt Romney

Most determined man in the room – Rick Santorum

Eventual Republican presidential nominee – Not In The Room

 

Cross-Posted at Florida Political Press

COMMENTS

  • Scope

    I had forgotten about the Santorum remark about Paul being mostly wrong, and I agree it was a highlight of the debate.

    The problem with the Bachmann submissive question was that she tried to answer it respectfully. I would have asked what that had to do with being the president of the US, or reminded that this is the US, not a muslim country under sharia law.

    Huntsman proved that he has earned his last place position in the polls.

    Gingrich hit it out of the park when he told Wallace that he was asking a gottcha question. He should have not done it again with Baier. He went one step ahead, and then two steps back.

    The sparring between Bachmann and Pawlenty was unappealing, but what made it worse was the moderators egging them on and wasting valuable time against the other candidates.

    Herman Cain was great, when they gave him time to be great, which wasn’t much.

    I’ve always liked Santorum, but for whatever reason he just can’t break out. I did love his making Paul look the crazed loon that he is. More need to do it more often.

    Romney is still playing it safe, and by doing so he doesn’t hurt himself, but he doesn’t help himself either.

    The winner of the debate last night was Rick Perry because he was smart enough not to attend. By the next debate, the field will likely narrow, and then we can hear from those left how they plan to save the country, and the world with more than a one minute answer.

    • mikeymike143

      this was a really good analysis. this debate showed why the words ”ron paul” and ”president of the united states” should never ever be used in the same sentence. and i suspect tpaw and huntsman will be the first two eliminated from this race.

      to be honest, my friends have been telling me for months about santorum having a good message and i have been blowing them off. well, i get to eat some crow today. he has actually climbed into my top two choices.

    • 6eorge Jetson

      With #3 & #4 beating each other up, Mitt decided to get out the popcorn and lay as low as he could.

      Dangit TPaw! I don’t want RINO Mitt to win. But I have to give mad cleverness props (not policy props) to Mitt’s “I liked your answer from the last debate better” response.

      1) Mitt wisely stepped back from the food fight, and in so doing contrasted well against the sideshow.

      2) What a clever subtle dig at TPaw. Nice punch while appearing not to throw a punch.

  • http://www.floridapoliticalpress.com/ tomtflorida

    Hadn’t thought about it, but you make a good point about Perry being the ‘winner’!

  • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

    I am a husband of one wife but I never can figure where this comes from.

    In fact I often hear that gay marriage is the slippery slope to polygamy which raises the questions:
    Is gay marriage preferable to polygamy?
    Is the only problem with gay marriage that it might lead to polygamy?

    At what point could states choose gay marriage but not polygamy? Can anybody point to anything written by ANY of the founding fathers to support that contention?
    In fact the opposite is true. Jefferson, probably the most libertine of the founders, was pretty clear concerning his opinion of homosexuality.

    Seriously people “polygamy” at least has some precedence and ACCEPTANCE biblically.

    Where does gay marriage fit in there?

    Not looking for more wives but seriously is there any clear thinking going on here?

    • acat

      “If the gay thing doesn’t scare you, how about the polygamy thing!”

      See also the idea of marriage to animals… i.e. beastiality. That’s the next stop on the chain.

      No offense, but none of you humans are my type!

      Mew

      • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

        As far as slippery slope goes. Both are perversions.

        It is hard to label polygamy a perversion sense many of the pillars of the Bible practiced it without it being labeled as such.

        As far as I am aware the only biblical prohibition on polygamy is for church leaders.

        • acat

          Anyone wish to wager on which gets overturned first?

          Mew

        • aesthete

          Unless you are advocating the establishment of a government run by church elders well-versed in Biblical hermeneutics and willing to force their interpretations as law, there will always be some level of perversion and evil that must be tolerated in a society. Indeed, in a free society the ability to make wrong choices *must* be protected, so that the ability to choose good is equally protected.

          There is nothing that says that mass bestiality (or recognition of such) *must* be the logical end of legal acceptance of gay marriage, other than a logical fallacy (slippery slope) with no backing in historical precedent.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            I am not for spying on anybody’s bedroom.

            We are not working on tolerance when we speak of gay marriage. We are talking about offical sanction of gay marriage. The government taking an official position that evil is good.

            It like saying we should allow the sale of alcohol vs saying we should promote alcohol, teach our children drunkenness is a virtue and officially demonize and marginalize anybody who preaches sobriety.

            “Unless you are advocating the establishment of a government run by church elders well-versed in Biblical hermeneutics and willing to force their interpretations as law”

            See, with gay marriage, secular humanism, global warming, etc. we do have a government run by church elders who are increasingly intolerant of anybody who refuses to worship at their altar.
            Penalizing those who refuse to accept their precepts.

          • aesthete

            but that just seems to imply that liberty (i.e., government not subsidizing either good or evil) is the best course of action, given that what is truly good and fair requires no subsidy, and that as a result the subsidy of both (which tends to be the endgame when one is subsidized over the other) is objectively going to be pro-evil.

            “See, with gay marriage, secular humanism, global warming, etc. we do have a government run by church elders[...]”

            True. I don’t think that’s worked out so well for us.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            From ethanol, to education, to gay marriage or even straight marriage.

            Build roads and bridges by using money taken as close to the project as possible, provide an adequate military and leave me alone.

          • acat

            in keeping with local standards, not in keeping with dictats from a czar far, far away.

            Mew

          • acat

            (whacks head on desk)

            Time for a coffee break!

            Mew

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            I doubt there is anyway to permanently sideline the czar far away.

            I dont know of a single instance of such an educational system anywhere in the world.

            But just as importantly, food for children is obviously far more important, than education. We have no problem, at least theroretically, with expecting parents to feed the offspring they produce.

            Why should they not also be responsible for educating them?

            I am not tossing this out abstractly, I have seven kids. We homeschool and nobody subsidizes that even though the education is superior.

            In fact I am still required to subsidize others who send their kids to the propaganda mills.

            I would agree the best possible public system would be one in which control was local with parents having all of the hiring decisions. It never works that way.

          • acat

            and education in general largely end up wtih vouchers.

            For homeschoolers, these would be redeemable for textbooks, “classroom” materials, possibly field trips (i.e. discount/free admission to museums, art galleries, symphony, etc) although the total value redeemable would not be available as there is no salary to pay. (no, recovery of salary not earned is not the same thing)

            For everyone else, vouchers redeemable for private schools or public, schools free to have their own admissions standards, dress codes, what have you.

            The testing portion of No Child Left Behind – the part Obama just got started gutting – to be used to determine whether public and private (and home) schools are making the grade. (or suitable equivalent)

            For the record, 4 of my nieces and nephews are homeschooled. 4 more are in or will likely be in private schools. The remainder are public school kids, because that choice should ultimately be left to the parents.

            Mew

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            That would allow parents to have total control and the education would be much improved because of that.

          • acat

            At the State level, not the Federal, athough some nationwide standards are needed so that a diploma from New York City is equivalent to one from Paducah, Kentucky.

            Unless we plan to die young, we all have a vested interest in the next generation.

            Mew

          • wonkish1

            Youtube her.

            She is finally getting Democrats to see that the teachers unions are destroying kids futures.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            They always screw it up and go political.
            Give parents control and it will be alright.
            The most productive generation this nation ever had was educated in the late 1800′s with few state standards and zero national standards in two room schools across the country.

          • wonkish1

            Is that it institutes an apples to apples comparison between schools across the country.

            Basically a standardized test creates a necessary *metric* to compare a school in New York City to one in New Orleans. Everything else in NCLB is a waste of money. A budget of a couple million dollars a year could result in a test for schools to be compared against others especially if you were willing to allow a 3rd party testing company or non profit to draft the tests each year.

            The problem is as you point out that NCLB is about setting some national standard for what proficiency is and then provides funding to ones that are above that mark.

            The truth is though that a school that goes from testing at 20% to 40% in a year or 2 is performing better than one that goes from 80% to 85%.

            The definition of learning is not hitting some arbitrary mark. It is what does the child know at the beginning of the year and how much additional information does the child know at the end of the year. The larger difference between A and B the more successful the school, teacher, student, etc. was.

            All you really ever had to do on the national level was create the tests each year(the same way they handle the ACT and SAT) and force the schools to make the results public then get out of the way.

            The local districts, charter, and private schools would then feel the pressure from parents to improve performance and it would be handled locally.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            So do most public schoolers. PSAT, IOWA BASICS, Stanford.
            They existed long before NCLB.

            Schools at the direction of parents would choose one from many.

            The freemarket had this solved long ago. I took Iowa Basics in public school in WV back in the 70′s.

            Federal standards do nothing useful. And more likely allow the results to be directed to promoting schools teaching political doctrine.

          • wonkish1

            And if I’m not mistaken almost of all of them were state based and the few national ones were given only in High School.

            I never took a national test in elementary or middle school. I do think that I did take a state one in middle school. Students in a different state didn’t take the same test.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            But I took it in WV.
            It probably was cheaper or more convenient or whatever for WV to use.
            So even though it was created by Iowa it was adopted by states or counties around the country.
            The PSAT is I think administered by the college board same as the SAT.
            I also took one called CTBS in middle school.
            Don’t know where that is from.
            Point is there was already nationally norm’ed tests. Some public, some private. Competition.
            If parents were in control of dollars schools would be forced to use a testing system trusted by the parents.

          • aesthete

            I think of myself as a successful product of homeschooling (I’m sure you all have different opinions about the level of success :) ), and I’ve found that the vast majority of homeschoolers need no prodding from the government or anyone else to give their children an education: they are enormously invested in their childrens’ future, and have an incentive to make sure their children are properly educated. There is an abundance of resources available to homeschoolers at a reasonable cost, or even for free: just recently, I learned about Khan Academy, a free, high-quality web-based teaching program that goes from K-12, with its math programs going from basic addition/subtraction all the way to differential equations and linear algebra. In fact, most everywhere but the public school seems to be innovating cheaper, more efficient, and more effective ways to teach — and in some quarters (esp homeschooling), there is a paradigm shift regarding what things are worthy of being taught. There’s truly never been a better time to be a homeschooler, or to send one’s child to public school: it just keeps getting easier and cheaper to teach. If divorcing funds from public schools made sense in the 90s, then even moreso today.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            But always well reasoned. :) a standard I hope my kids achieve .

            You are right. It is getting better and cheaper.

          • streiff

            using this logic, if one argues the creation of a welfare system which pays money to impoverished single mothers and nothing to an impoverished intact family would inevitably lead to runaway out of wedlock births and divorce is a slippery slope. It isn’t. It is a logically foreseeable consequence like driving drunk down a country road at 100mph.

            What the acceptance of gay marriage is based on is the idea that a state does not have the right to define marriage. Never mind this is contrary to some 6000 years of history. If the state does not have the right to define marriage then polygamy, polyandry, bestiality, whatever are the logically foreseeable consequences of placing the desires of one’s libido on a plane higher than the good of society.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            “forseeable consequence is not a slippery slope” and absolutely true.

            Any disagreement I have is with your second paragraph. To the extent, historically, 6000 years or so, society has defined marriage. More often than not by delegating all of that authority to the state.

            We are supposedly a little different here. I don’t have any legal objection to the state defining marriage but I think that is where the foreseeable consequences arise.
            By now we have to recognize the “state” is entirely susceptible to being hijacked by special interests. So state sanctioned marriage will soon mean I, as a business owner, will be ordered by the state to provide benefits for the same-sex spouse of an employee I cannot, by law, refuse to hire simply because he is gay.

            I am forced therefore to directly subsidize behavior I consider to be immoral. I know the argument that I am already forced to do so when I pay taxes is valid but I am at least once removed. My name is not on the check to Klanned Parenthood.

            Privatize the marriage contract and society will be in the drivers seat. Anybody can choose to recognize or not, any marriage, as they interact with people. I already do this with unmarried “couples” of whatever persuasion. They have no force of law behind them.

          • GregInFla

            I have always told friends that marriage is an unwritten contract that is only opened when it needs to be severed, and that those that interpret it will have no knowledge of the circumstances under which it was entered. From a legal viewpoint, would anyone want to join into such an agreement? The use of marriage in determining taxes and social security benefits (and other govt bene’s as well), is where the govt gets involved. This is admirable in that it encourages the development of new citizens and contributors to economic growth. Who could have envisioned the current issue regarding the government stance?

            Rogue, I am glad to here you consider yourself a worthy product of homeschooling. Our family of five homeschools and supports the local homeschool community here. Florida enjoys very liberal homeschooling policies at the state level (Tim Tebow is a hero here, and in Alabama) and we all understand it can be change quickly. I ask all to support the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA).

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            Which is why I homeschool my kids.

            Aesthete is apparently the homeschooling product. And a well turned product at that.

            We are sometimes FL and sometimes WV homeschoolers. FL is easier to deal with but WV has gotten much better.

            HSLDA is a great organization. Along with PHC.

            I am actually in CO right now to drop off a couple of kids at iGovern West the GenJ camp.

          • aesthete

            Isn’t the whole argument from social conservatives vis a vis gay marriage that government is improperly defining marriage as something that stands against its “traditional” definition for 6000+ years? That being the case, isn’t the argument that the state is improperly defining marriage to be something that it’s not, rather than that it is abdicating its role in defining marriage?

            The argument also presents a false dichotomy, in that the choice is not “good of society” > “libido”, or the converse, nor is it considered to be such among the majority of the body politic (either pro- or contra- gay marriage). I’m not a supporter of gay marriage (rather, I’m one of those immoral degenerates who would delegate traditional definitions back to society to the extent possible), but logically, the setup presented here does not hold up under scrutiny.

        • JSobieski

          What the bible classifies as being “worse” only matters to the extent that the citizens of the US care about it.

          There isn’t any substantial portion of the population pushing for the legalization of polygamy.So what is your point?

          That gay marriage should be illegal because it is worse than polgyamy and polygamy is outlawed? Fine. Make the argument, but it is clear that the public isn’t buying it.

          Support for gay marriage is somewhere around 35%, but among young people it is over 50%. The Bible has no legal standing in US law outside of the values internalized by actual citizens who act through their elected representatives.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            I am saying the argument that is made, that gay marriage will lead to polygamy, is ridiculous since the argument is essentially that promoting an evil may result in another activity that is not immoral.

            And we are told this is a slippery slope.

            My point is simply that this is a ridiculous analogy to be drawn and its seems to be drawn most by conservatives.

            While the Bible may hold no sway in official legal circles, if it doesn’t hold sway in conservative circles we have lost our claim as the party of morals, however poorly we set the example.

            Just as Jefferson noted a written Constitution gives something to snap back to when we wander in the legal minefields, the Bible should give conservatives a foundation on which to stand when we wander morally.

            If there is no party concerned with morals left I guess that completely explains our current state. Expect it to get much worse as the debt problem plays out.

          • JSobieski

            People think they might want A but the know they don’t want B. Link them together in order to make people think twice about A.

            I am concerned with morals.
            I disagree that polygamy is moral, but the morality of polygamy in terms of biblical teaching is irrelevant here.

            I am talking about impacting the public sphere, which is not limited to Biblical readers.

            P.S. The linkage from gay marriage to legalized polygamy is real, and it is happening in Europe.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            is that it is only illegal if you try to do it the honorable way and “officially” marry her. Live with as many as you want out of wedlock and each “wife” can collect all the benefits society has to offer. For as many kids as you are able to sire. The government will provide the Viagra no charge.

            Debating gay marriage vs polygamy “here” is only irrelevant “here” if conservatives are not going to be guided by biblical standards when developing their positions for public policy.

            In other words, are conservative standards of morality going to be based on something objective or are we going to adopt our positions based on moral relativity as the left does?

            Are we going to build the “Golden Calf” as the mob demands or will we be willing to die “politically” with our morals intact?

            This is why we lost the debt ceiling argument. btw. The left knew we would discard any principled stand in favor of catering to the mob and perceived relevance.

            Is there any field on which conservatives are willing to fight to the death? Absent that willingness we will always lose.

          • JSobieski

            If you are going to refer to Old Testament teachings to call for eye for eye punishment, the illegality of blasphemy, stoning adulterors to death, and slavery—I say thee nay!

            Our Founders had a choice between self government and rule from above—they chose self government.

            The Bible is silent on intellectual property rights, so should be disband patent law?

            The Bible is not a great source for public policy. Unlike the Islamic religion, Christianity focuses almost exclusively on personal morality, not the rules for society at large.

            In short, I disagree with a lot of your premises. There are things for which I am willing to fight to the death, but I should point out that Jesus did not “fight” to the death for anything, and thus fighting to the death cannot be a prerequisite for moral action. I should also point out that Jesus said nada about capitalism, free markets, and other staples of conservative values.

            If religious texts were meant to serve as societal laws, our Founding Fathers wouldn’t have bothered enacting societal laws.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            For you and me.

          • JSobieski

            Unless you just want to stretch words to the point of being meaningless.

            Jesus subjected himself to death. He did not “fight to the death”.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            more in terms of a spiritual fight that culminated in a “victory.”

            His sacrifice “was” the death blow.

          • JSobieski

            (or any other derivation of the word “fight”) in the bible.

          • runner12

            The Bible refers to Jesus as both a Lamb and the Lion of Judah. So I guess you could say you got your big cats a little confused :)

          • westcoastpatriette

            “Jesus said nada about capitalism, free markets, and other staples of conservative values.” You are omitting or forgetting the many parables relating to finances that Jesus spoke about. Some of them absolutely reflected the practice of free markets and capitalism as the primary source of earning a living. Also, the scriptures do address not cheating customers by using faulty scales, laws against usury, selling marred or faulty goods, taking advantage of the poor. The old testament prophets railed against defrauding the poor, taking advantage of the weak, etc. To the contrary, the concept of socialism or civil governments subsidizing the poor–something liberals like to claim Jesus would have supported–is unheard of within Judaism which Christianity was birthed from. The bible–both old and new testaments is a staunch advocate of free markets and God wanted to keep it honest and profitable.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            Nt

          • westcoastpatriette

            .

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            For all of the vast differences in outlook between conservatives and liberals, when either side references the words of Jesus as a touchstone for policy, as you have done, it is standing on a shared errant assumption, namely that Jesus’ teachings were delivered in a political context–an assumption that he himself explicitly and multiply contradicted. As painful as it is to acknowledge, the modern evangelical would do well to study the beginnings of political liberalism as an outgrowth of conservative christian thought among those to whom the gospel as “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” was thought capable of enhancement in fruit by political action.

            As far as what is mentioned in the testaments, I seem to remember a number of parables in which Jesus spoke with high honor of kings and kingdoms, but very little about representative republics, presidents, congresses, police forces–or political blogs either, for that matter. Perhaps it is time to repent of certain decisions made at the height of the Enlightenment as well!

          • westcoastpatriette

            particularly that I was referencing Jesus’ words as a” touchstone for policy” and that Jesus’ teachings were “delivered in a political context.” I said neither. I was simply stating that Jesus did not expect an individual’s responsibility to care for the poor to be turned over to the government of any society and doubt that he would have been a crusader of such public policies. Manipulative politicians, however, love to twist the scripture to justify policies that, supposedly, are designed to help the poor.

            As far as Jesus not teaching in a political context, he ministered to every facet of society including civil and political rulers as he crossed their paths throughout his young life. I could say much more but will leave it alone for now.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            since you continue to equate Jesus’ parabolic reference to contemporary economic realities–familiar to his hearers–as a definitive, authoritative statement of his in respect to particular economic policies which would begin to be practiced nearly 2,000 years later. By the same logic, his parables never mentioned gold coinage; only silver. Does that drive a stake through the Paulites’ heart? He said that the woman who lost said coins swept her house. Does that mean that he is anti-vacuum cleaner? And to embellish my point above, Jesus’ continual positive references to kings, kingdoms and kingship, by your logic, would lead me to say that I doubt very much that he would approve of a kingdom being turned over to government of the people, by the people and for the people.

            I completely agree with you that “[m]anipulative politicians … love to twist the scripture to justify policies…”; you seem to have missed my point that such twisting can be, and is, done on both sides of the spectrum, and we are warned in scripture itself not to indulge in it. There are explicit biblical passages which address universal moral commandments of God; many, however, were applicable only to theocratic Israel between Sinai and Good Friday and can not be applied under the unique terms to which Israel was covenantally bound during that time; much less can the parables of Christ be treated as commentary on particular political or economic realities–to do so is to risk missing their true intent and thereby imperil one’s access to the eternal kingdom to which the parables unceasingly point.

          • acat

            Literature has a role in society, but as one who does not share your religion, you’ll pardon me if I disagree on the role of literature as more than just a collection of (admittedly, quite well thought out) fables in my conservatism.

            That said, while I don’t have a particular problem with polygamy, it’s important to recognize the sociological problems that come along with it. The obvious issue is .. what happens to the surplus male babies?

            What I mean is, since birth rates for males and females are approximately even, if every man gets two wives, then either there’s a net import of females, or there’s a net export of males. Historically, both approaches have been used, often brutally.

            This is why, in our own history, polygamy was linked to slavery as a “barbarism”.

            At this point, though, we could likely construct social mores that would recognize polygamist relationships, and perhaps even fiddle with birth rates to bring them more into line.

            That doesn’t make it a good idea, just a possible – non-barbaric – one.

            As for gay marriage, my view remains that a sacrament of the church should not be entrusted to a government. Blame the kings of europe for merging the two looking for a way to legitimize heirs born on the right side of the blanket, but the fact is that it muddles what the sacrament means to the religious while, concurrently, giving the militant gays looking for emotional acceptance a convenient pinata that “must be defended” …

            Making government blind to marriage, with some sort of civil contract to allow the normal *secular* benefits – hospital visitation, distribution of assets on death, distribution on divorce, care for and disposition of children, tax status, etc. – would remove the pinata (what are they going to do, sue churches? free speech plus freedom of religion trump – or would if fought properly) while concurrently protecting the divine.

            But then, I’m just a cat. What could I know?

            Mew

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            While i recognize not every conservative is a Christian, I am and most are.

            The arguments I use in conservative circles may well be more weighted with Biblical arguments but I recognize I have an obligation outside of those circles to sell things in a way that non-Christians understand.

            But I dont abdicate my faith and adopt secular positions that directly conflict with what are pretty clear cut biblical precepts.

            I agree we should just take it away from the state altogether.

            Private contracts developed by and/or sanctioned by religious institutions could better handle the job.

            Sometimes it is important to sell what seems like a secular argument to other Christians ala private marriage contracts. Very much the argument of protecting the rights of non-Christians today (it would allow gay marriage in the Church of Hollywood) in order to protect Christian rights tomorrow.

          • acat

            is for the “church marriage contract” to include a mediation clause, and maybe a kind of “marriage mentoring” clause. Things that, historically, the church provided. Perhaps not provided *well*, but .. better than government.

            This also nicely defuses the gay issue – “This is our denomination’s contract, if you want to be married in this church, you must accept it. You may not substitute your own any more than a Pepsi bottler may change the formula.”

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            are contrary to clear cut biblical precepts?

            Do you really want to lock in a moral code from thousands of years ago that allowed for the stoning of adulterors? slavery? Are these practices morally superior to gay marriage?

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            in the same moral framework. Which is where I started.

            I said I am tired of seeing it posited as the bottom of the slippery slope.

            As somehow lower on the moral scale than gay marriage.

            If we take your adultery as an example, do we now say adultery is a perfectly fine morally elevated choice? or did we just stop stoning people for it while still recognizing the immorality of it?

            So we don’t stone gays. We also don’t change it into something good.

            Polygamy on the otherhand is morally neutral.

          • JSobieski

            Under your logic, stoning someone to death for adultery is not only not bad, but in fact good.

            Polgamy is no more moraly neutral than stoning someone to death for adultery or owning slaves. Why don’t you look for some Hittites to slaughter?

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            polygamy is never Old or New Testament referred to as a sin.

            Homosexuality is a sin in both.

            As to stoning adulterers I can’t argue with it but I also can’t do it. I am not without sin.

            Jesus made it clear related to divorce that he saw a difference between the civil, divorce is easy, and the spiritual, divorce is hard.

            Which is to say he recognized the old testament civil laws and then set a higher standard for his followers.

            As for slaughtering Hittites I don’t know any. But in addition and more importantly the voices have never told me too.

          • JSobieski

            Owning slaves is not a sin?

            There are a lot of sins in this world. When someone in the western world puts stoning someone to death as morally superior to homosexuality, I must admit that I am stunned.

            I recall something about he being without sin throwing the first stone.

            If you don’t know anything about the Hittites, I suggest you brush up on your Bible reading.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            I said I couldn’t stone someone. I am not without sin. He couldn’t have sinned so not stoning is not a sin. I also don’t think it was a trick question. Someone without sin could have stoned her. Christ could have but choose not to.

            I think the sinfulness of slavery is conditional to the situation but generally a sin.
            I could for example sell myself into slavery and the purchaser would not be sinning.
            Selling someone into slavery on the other hand is sinful if for no other reason than it effectively would be stealing their future from them.

            I am familiar with the Hittites of the Bible. I have never seen one that I am aware of. There are times in the old testament when God ordered the Israelites to attack, conquer kill. I assume he was justified in his actions and they were justified thereby.
            Apparently, he has left this to my discretion because he hasn’t told me to kill any Hittites.

            I do believe in Heaven and Hell.
            I think unrepentent sinners go to Hell where getting stoned would seem like a reprieve. I think this includes unrepentent homosexuals and adulterers.
            I believe God is just and therefore Hell is just. We have all earned it.

            Only by grace are we saved from it.

            I see nothing in the Old or New Testament to indicate that a polygamist with no other sin would earn a place in Hell.

          • rightwingmom52

            Jesus said a man shall cleave to his wife, i.e., one wife. In the beginning what God intended marriage to be was set with the first marriage performed by God. Much more evidence that polygamy is sin but I’ve got to get ready for the RSG reception. Plus I’m not that great on a phone and won’t get to computer until Sunday pm.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            But I think since it is something that was practiced by heavy hitters without being directly called a sin it is at best ambiguous.
            Hope you enjoy the RSG. I did last year in Austin.

          • Xasteius

            Except for the tax status, which we eliminate through a flat tax…

            To my thinking, the gay-rights issues seems to mostly about Tax status (money) and forcing viewpoints down the throats of others and innocent children at school (unacceptable). But, as a disclaimer, I am single.

          • acat

            (or implied, anyway) that “gay marriage” is a pinata, an easy target for gays seeking an emotional acceptance that they’re “normal”. That is, what they want can’t be gained through the courts, so they demand something easy but that religious conservatives are obligated to defend instead.

            Remove the pinata and let them flail around until they find some other group to fight with.

            Mew

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          and woman to come together as one in love. He tolerated polygamy and divorce due to the weakness of man. All sex outside marriage is sin, especially including homosexual acts. The Bible does not expressly state what civil laws should be.

          I think it has been a possibly fatal mistake not to have ordained marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman in the US Constitution. More than 38 states (the number required for ratification) so clearly we could pass such an amendment but for Dem senators in blue states.

          Marriage is the cornerstone of civil society and should be promoted by local, state and the nation as much clean water is promoted, if not more. Promotion need not mean “subsidize”, but if we need so much in taxes for medium to large government, then I have no problem with tax deductions for children. I do think the rates applied should be the same based on income, generally.

    • JSobieski

      The argument that legalizing gay marriage will ultimately lead to legalized polygamy is a valid argument (look to Europe and you will see that legalized poligamy is de facto recognized).

      However, not all bad ideas are prohibited by the Constitution. To the contrary, the Constitution promotes self-government (rule by the majority) with certain specific exceptions and certain specific procedural hoops.

      There is nothing unconstitutional about gay marriage or polgamy. The fact that neither is a good idea doesn’t make them unconstitutional.

      We are either self-governed under the constraints of the Constitution or we are slaves to an elite (whether left or right) that makes decisions based on the shared values of the nation.

      I heard both Obama and Santorum make the “shared values” comment this week. Both made this strict constructionist cringe.

      • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

        “The argument that legalizing gay marriage will ultimately lead to legalized polygamy is a valid argument”

        My point is first that polygamy and gay marriage are hardly morally equivalent.
        Second the argument is always presented as “Well if you allow gay marriage then something much much worse like polygamy will be next.” As though gay marriage is somehow six levels of morality above polygamy.

        If we take our nation’s morals from the Judeo-Christian tradition I am interested in seeing where the Bible would tell us that polygamy is immoral. I know homosexuality is so declared, as is bestiality. Why do we accept the idea that polygamy, which is biblically sound, is somehow equivalent to the other two?

        Adopting the strict constructionist philosophy regarding the Constitution and not the Bible doesn’t make sense.

        Again, I am not seeking new wives and I don’t think the Bible mandates polygamy, however it also doesn’t preclude it or condemn it.

        • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

          Additionally, your reference to Europe’s de facto polygamy is no less applicable here.

          I could load my house up with as many babes as I choose. Look at Hugh Hefner. Nothing illegal there. (well related to the girls anyway.)

          The tax code is the primary issue here. Followed by family court.

          Gay marriage is the least impactful as far as the tax man goes so uncle sugar has no problem there.

          Polygamy on the other hand could easily gum up the works and have massive implications concerning who deducts who, joint filing, multi-joint filing, some joint filing some not, The marriage penalties that still exist and how to make sure everybody gets screwed (no pun intended.)

          This entire question really boils down to one thing. How do we get government out of marriage?
          Let the churches handle it. Then all marriage penalties are eliminated.

        • JSobieski

          What the Bible says has no impact on what the laws are except to the extent that the Bible shapes the thinking of law makers, voters, and citizens.

          I am not arguing equivalence. I am arguing that proposition 1 (gay marriage) that is only opposed by about 60% of the population will lead to proposition 2 (polygamy) that is opposed by 95% of the population.

          There is always logic in a Republic to argue against something by saying that it will lead to something else. The fact that the bible may not agree with public opinion is irrelevant.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          Wayne Grudem’s Politics According to the Bible, in chapter 7 on Marriage concludes that Gen 1-2 establishes God’s preference. 1Tim 3:2 requires elders to be the “husband of one wife” which shows an explicit preference for same and would also apply to ban those that remarry after divorce from leadership as well.

          Dr Grudem also points out that in every instance where polygamy was practiced in the Bible, it leads to trouble but that God temporarily allowed it to occur without explicit commands against it but never gave it explicit moral approval as he did with traditional marriage being the image of God.

          But I think civil laws are best defended based on objective reasons and not juts because the Bible says thus and so. I would say that the principles and teachings of the Bible do exhibit objective reasons for most all of its moral teachings and that there are very good reasons from the Bible and history for a society to ban same sex marriage and polygamy.

          I would also say that it might also be best at times, depending on how widespread a culture has declined, for a society to relax said laws so as not to rile a society further. I don’t think we are there yet and I do favor a Constitutional amendment to define marriage nationally as only between one man and one woman.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            I am not in favor of polygamy.

            My point, and you actually back it up is that polygamy is practiced Biblically and while God my not prefer it he doesn’t label it explicitly a sin either.
            Homosexuality is NEVER sanctioned or tolerated Biblically. In fact it is called an abomination.

            I take that to mean it is much worse than polygamy.

            My point all along is that folks, conservatives in particular, want to draw a picture where polygamy is even worse than gay marriage.
            I don’t think there is any basis to believe that.

            As to what society may or may not tolerate, let’s make marriage a private affair and the perverted can do what they want. And they will.

            Churches will do likewise.

            Society is not forced to accept, recognize or promote anything.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Not sure what that means. Yes, people practice polygamy and slavery in the Bible, so i guess its technically correct to say its biblically practiced? Most all human acts are recorded in the Bible, so I’m not sure that characterization gets us anywhere.

            Clearly, the Bible teaches God’s preference for human liberty and traditional marriage even as he indulges the weakness of man and his desire for a King, divorce, slavery and polygamy.

            Yes, God denounces all homosexual acts as well as all heterosexual acts outside of marriage.

            So if one wants to get into the ranking of sin and what that may say about slippery slopes and what ought and ought not to be legal, then I would admit that such rankings are a help.

            But the analysis really comes down to a case-by-case analysis that should employ objective criteria.

            I would say that share you objections to the use of slippery slope arguments when the slope done slipped with the issue at hand, ie homosexual marriage. That is anathem a to marriage in a way that polygamy is not.