Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Kevin McCullough :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why Liberals Loathe 'The People'
by Kevin McCullough
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Regardless of partisan affiliation liberals seem to be on the war-path against the voice, votes, and welfare of those they work for: we the people. They are actively seeking to make them voiceless in the process of governing through supposed self-determination. They are also intent upon enslaving them to increasing government dependency for their basic needs, or to even entice them to live lawfully.

Such truths about the left should embarrass them. But they seem either too innocently dense, or purposefully hostile and arrogant towards those of us who put them in office to be willing to change direction.

This is a worrisome thing.

Last week the voice of the people was shut out of the process of weighing in on one of the most explosively controversial topics of the day - redefining marriage to include additional sexual couplings.

It is the prevailing wisdom to allow the people to decide the weightiest matters of our time but not so to the ruling Marxist Democrats of Massachusetts. 151 political elites in the combined houses of the state legislature voted AGAINST allowing the people of the state a voice to speak. They voted to prevent allowing the people the chance to decide for themselves how they would like to define marriage. 151 political elites prevented 6,400,000 plus citizens the right to say yes or no to the most controversial legislation of the day.

They did so because it is widely believed based on reputable polls that were the people of the state to decide for themselves how marriage would be defined that they would do so by saying simply, "marriage is a sacred sexual union of one man and one woman." They would do so on the basis that such unions offer the safest, healthiest environment for children to grow and prosper in.

And of course they would be right.

But the people be damned, the 151 elite have political debts to pay!

But liberal contempt for the people is a bipartisan effort. Consider Mayor Michael Bloomberg of my city - New York.

In the Tuesday news dailies across the boroughs swept the story of the mayor's "experimental" plan to "pay the poor for good behavior."

For the first part of the efforts the mayor has promised funding exclusively from the private sector to "study" the impact of literally "throwing money" at people who should be doing what they would now be paid to do. According to the Associated Press a family in the program could earn up to $6000 for doing things like: taking their child to the doctor, "high attendance" in school (note not perfect - just "high"), attending parent/teacher conferences, and even - get this - $150 a month for "working full time."

The Mayor got the idea from examining the thriving metropolitan areas of Brazil and Mexico - you know - where poverty has been eliminated.

Besides empowering the Mayor with an extremely powerful voting block for the future what is the ultimate goal?

Well if the program is successful he hopes to translate the dollars from the private sector to the public sector - thus allowing those of us taking our children to the doctor, forcing our kids to go to school everyday, attending parent teacher conferences, and keeping our jobs - the rare and sublime opportunity to pay others to do the same.

And once the program is transferred to public funding (via tax increases) what do you suspect the likelihood of it ever disappearing would be?

So how will Bloomberg's vision provide these cash rewards for 14,000 persons/families? All added up that comes to $84 million, of which he has raised $43 million to date.

Interestingly enough I spent the majority of my Tuesday broadcast discussing this program. I took close to two dozen calls on-air, all of them inner-city blacks, from Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx. Several were single mothers, all of them described themselves as "financially struggling." Not one of them felt it was a good idea.

More importantly to a person they all felt insulted.

Liberals may not realize it - but good parents don't take their kids to the doctor because someone will cut them a check for $200. Good parents don't settle for 95% attendance and get crazy over the $50 that comes with it.

What I heard in call after call - especially from the single moms, was how hard they worked to get to parent/teacher conferences - because it was just good for their children.

Bloomberg's idea is similar to that of a crack cocaine dealer. You know the one who gives you the first snort for free.

Liberals loathe We The People and their contempt is showing in how they are governing, which is why we should relinquish that privilege from them as soon as possible.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Xtreme' Radio and columnist based in New York. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com. His second book "The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be" is in stores now.

Be the first to read Kevin McCullough's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Sorry, pard
But nowdays the GOP is absolutely no better at listening to the people; it's not just a Democrat problem.

The GOP has ALSO been spending for years like drunken sailors. The guy who wants the infamous Bridge to Nowhere, Ted Stevens, is a Republican.

The best example is the GOP's slavish pushing, in concert with the Dems, of this outrageous scamnesty.

There's plenty of blame to go around right now, and the GOP is JUST as guilty as the Dems.

The Liberal Disinformation Machine
is in full force, and our doofus Republican "leaders" sit on their hands and grin.

Why is it that Tony Snow is out there trying to stuff illegal aliens down our throats when he ought to be using his considerable talents countering the Leftie anti-war machine?

And why the flip is he not standing up against the pro-socialized medicine machine, featuring the newly released Michael Moore film called Sicko (not an autobiography)?

America
We should be ashamed of ourselves. How disgusting.

In the Tuesday news dailies across the boroughs swept the story of the mayor's "experimental" plan to "pay the poor for good behavior."

For the first part of the efforts the mayor has promised funding exclusively from the private sector to "study" the impact of literally "throwing money" at people who should be doing what they would now be paid to do. According to the Associated Press a family in the program could earn up to $6000 for doing things like: taking their child to the doctor, "high attendance" in school (note not perfect - just "high"), attending parent/teacher conferences, and even - get this - $150 a month for "working full time."

Michael Bloomburg = Ross Perot?
Funny how everytime the Clintons run for office, some fool politician appears to try and steal votes from the Republican camp.

Could Mayor Bloomhead be the next Ross Perot; attempting to hijack some issue and steal Repub votes?

I was really disgusted to see the local Los Angeles news showing Michael Bloomhead posing with our photo-op Mayor, Antonio "Evita" Villa-La-Raza, and the turn-coat Governator Arnold Schwartzenegger-com-Kennedy.

I wanted to throw the remote at the TV!

Solo610- Sign me up!
Where can I get paid for my lifetime of good behavior? I could use $6,000!!!

Does the truth hurt Allen?
Otherwise, why would you be so eager to be a part of the Leftie Loser misinformation campaign.

Just go around telling normal people that they are not on the "Bandwagon," and you think you can convince us that everyone is a miserable Leftie Loser like you, and just give up.

Well guess what doofus! We are on to your tricks.

Go back to the Daily Kos, where you belong!

Allen
What is your deal man? An attack on Kevin's receding hair line? Who cares if he is losing hair or fat? How does that discredit his article? You have issues ....For what it is worth though you did a good job of lending credit to his opinion of liberals.

Allen
Wow, an impressive rant.

But completely devoid of substance.

In respose to Allen
You are all too typical of the opponents of conservatism.
Your 'arguments' are shallow personal attacks.

If your fellows had or have any commitment to true civil debate, they will disavow your statements.
Instead many of them will support and amplify your statements.

In response to CharlieS
Calmly, now.
Allen has as much right to voice his opinions here as any of us do.
Besides, quite frankly his statements only highlight the adult quality found so much more often among conservatives.

In response to Solo610
Allen's pointless diatribe is no more ridiculous, substanceless and childish than many on his side of the political spectrum. Why single him out?
Just speak to him like any reasonable adult would to a petulant juvenile. Since that is the role he has obviously adopted for himself.

They promise to rule well...but
...they still promise to rule.
"Liberals loathe We The People and their contempt is showing in how they are governing, which is why we should relinquish that privilege from them as soon as possible."

True. but, some of those that need relinquished, claim to be conservative. Witness the current immigration fiasco in congress, and the insistance on forcing Rudy McRommney down our throat, as the next POTUS canadiate. There's a whole lotta relinquishing that needs to be done.

Allen...
Get lost

Tallil2long
You are correct; we should not roll in the mud with such as Allen, just tell them their fault and move on. Name calling never got us anywhere.

As for paying people to do what they ought to do, Daddy had an answer for that. "What will you give me?" we would sometimes ask when he told us to do some particularly undesirable chore. "Nothing if you do," was his inevitable answer, "Hell if you don't." It worked.

P.S. I have found you a copy of 1984 and will send it out today. Hope you are enjoying the other books.

Question for the Left...
(...including Allen): if conservatives in this country are really on "the fringes" on issues such as "gay marriage," the "right to choose," and other social issues, then why not allow -- heck, why not DEMAND -- your leadership to bring the issues up for a vote?

After all, if we're on "the fringes," you guys are bound to win, aren't you?

Allen
"Allen writes: Wednesday, June, 20, 2007 2:30 AM
Talk about embarressing"

You should be, because it's spelled "Embarrassing."

Sorry folks, I just couldn't help myself.

As far as Bloomberg wanting to throw money at people for good behavior is utterly ridiculous. Hey, if he wants to pay out of his own pocket and not burden the tax payers of New York, have at it, consider it charity and write it off.



To Audi
We most certainly are enjoying them. I've embarked on "Atlas Shrugged", though I haven't gotten very far in it yet. Got distracted with promotion board and various NCO boards.

The Dems in MASS were right!
I hate to say it, but they were right! Did you all forget? This is a Republic, not a Democracy. What a great example of our Republic at work.

In a Republic the rule of law is #1. Elected peoples in office represent the people but are NOT held to their will. If every single person in the country wanted "option A" but the elected official went with "option B" then there is not a darn thing anyone can do about it except vote in the next election.

That is why getting good candidates is so important. That is why making sure we have REAL options and not some Bush or McCain joke. That is why we must ALL vote every single time and DEMAND good candidates.

As I said before, the Dems are right on this. We are a Republic and it is good to see it.

Taxes
What is up with all this "programs for the needy" junk comming from the politicians?! And yes, I mean mostly dems but also repubs.

When is it going to be too much? Quite frankly, they can't get blood from a stone. There will come a point when there will be no more money to be had from WE THE PEOPLE.

When will we say--no more of this lunacy? Many of these "programs" and "ideas" coming out these days sound to me a lot like taxation without representation. We don't get to vote on small increases in local state tax--and our national elected officials don't vote in line with the majority of their constituancy. Our government is turning into loony bin covered by a thin vaneer of sound bites.

Rule of the People?
Funny, I didn't hear Kevin McCullough getting all up in arms about how the elites over-ruled the people when Al Gore won the popular vote for president in 2000.

If McCullough were really interested in the rule of the people, how about this one: forget the legislature, forget referendums, let those adults who see fit enter voluntary contracts to form a family. Allow individuals to write in whomever they like in their pension claims and wills. Provide all Americans - gay, straight, black, white, whatever - non-preferential treatment under the law, instead of imposing the moral codex of times past.

g gaisford
I listen to McCullough's show everyday and I will tell you that he favors civil contracts between whoever and however they wish to arrange them.


JCDean et al
Sorry to burst your bubbles, but the good people of Massachusetts, in defending the definition of marriage, are only respecting the fact that marriage is defined by who may participate rather than the quality of the warmies that one person has for another, or by the wishes of a group of self-anointed elitist "progressives".

The 150 politicians there, just as the Republicans and the Democrats in the Congress are elected to REPRESENT, not ride roughshod, over the voters who put them in office. I'm sure if you asked those voters they'd be the first to say they don't care who shacks up with whom, just don't let's call every possible living arrangement something it is not.



getting Paid for being good...
I agree with kevin - why should the government offer incentives for what it feels is proper behavior.

First to go: The deduction for interest on a mortgage. Why shoud homeowners get a tax break just for owning a home? Could it be that Uncle Sam wants to encourage home ownership? How dare he...

Next: pretax deduction of income for tax deferred 401ks and retirement plans. Who does Uncle Sam think he is encouraging folks to save money for retirement? If they want to save money - that's great, but let them do it like everyone else...

Farm subsidies? They HAVE TO GO! Look, if farmers can't afford to farm, let them go on welfare...er, get a real job! Subsidies are Uncle Sam's way of saying: we wwant you to stay a farmer. Do we? I don't care either way...

Help me out here, folks. What else has to go?

Oh LOL
McCullough, welcome to civics 101. Massachusetts like the US is a republic, not a direct democracy. We have this thing called elections. Social conservatives tend to lose elections in Massachusetts -- perhaps because the electorate thinks that their views are not in synch.

Next he'll be whinging about activist legislators.



The People Have Spoken
about the war in Iraq - they want it to end...

So we're all in agreement?

We're not?

What happened to rule of the people?

CharlieS
"'Rockefeller republicans' [sic] ... As if she knows what one is. But time after time she, and all the other libs and/or Ron Paul trolls like her refuse to answer when challenged to define the term. Could it be because they don't want to? I doubt it. It's because she doesn't have a clue what a "Rockefeller Republican" is. 'Nuff said"

What, you don't know? And so, stamping your feet in frustration, you call people names?

I thought everyone knew, heck it's on Wikipedia--a Rockefeller Republican is a member of the liberal wing of the Republican Party, that is liberal on domestic policy, interventionists on foreign policy, led by Nelson Rockefeller, Governor of New York, 1959 to 1974, with Gerald Ford good example, or George H. W. Bush, or, for that matter, George W Bush, and neo-cons, and social conservatives.

In general, fiscal conservatives--advocates of individual liberty and small government--dislike Rockefeller Republicans for their socialist principles and values.

So despite your petty name calling, that should explain where Gabby and Ron Paul stand.

Big government Republicans listening?
To be honest, the current batch of big government Republicans aren’t any better at listening to people than the Democrats.

The neo-pub CINOs spend like Democrats; they just don't wish to tax for what they spent. Somehow, this is supposed to be fiscally conservative. I hope we real conservatives retake the party someday.

There are fissures in our party. Many Republicans, especially younger voters, are rebelling from the takeover of our party by big government, big spending social conservatives. This is no longer the party of Reagan, which celebrated limited government and optimism for America. Our party abandoned its roots, so its members are abandoning our party.

It seems we conservatives have been too busy drinking our own bathwater (reading only conservative pubs, listening primarily to conservative radio, etc.) to see what's going on with our party. We were elected on the promise of LIMITED GOVERNMENT, especially at the federal level. Instead of that, we decided to spend and spend and spend some more. Then, we decided big government was fine, so long as it promoted a socially conservative agenda (one that Goldwater would not have even recognized, by the way). We don't like online poker? Rather than simply choosing to not play, we instead passed federal legislation mandating banks to comb through our financial transactions and mandating our ISPs nose in on our Internet sites (and also mandating that ISPs block access to certain sites, as is done by China and Iran).

In fact, Antigua just won the final appeal of their WTO case against the U.S. for our restricting of the Internet, and the EU joined the case. Check it out, at http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/20/business/gamble.php .

After all, we can't trust Americans to make wise choices, right? We don't like Democrat corruption? Fine, we have lots of hearings (as we should). Republican corruption? We'd better hide that and criticize reporters who mention it, then act surprised when we lose elections (and blame the liberals for our own transgressions).

You want to see how bad Congressional Republicans are now with respect to limited government? The House Financial Services Committee had a hearing on June 8 to discuss the feasibility of effective regulation of Internet gaming. Hearing documents are on the committee website, at http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht060807.shtml ; the hearing webcast is at http://financialserv.edgeboss.net/wmedia/financialserv/hearing060807.wvx . However, despite the fact that the hearing clearly showed that Internet gambling can be effectively regulated (in fact, those favoring a ban on Internet gaming were embarrassed), Congressional Republicans like Spencer Bachus have decided that American adults cannot be trusted with the freedom to decide to play. Sad.

Perhaps the social conservatives and liberals who believe big government is wonderful should form a new pro-government party. They can jointly spend like drunken sailors on programs like No Child Left Behind and the prescription drug program. The limited government (i.e., true) conservatives and pro-business real Americans can then take back the Republican Party. We’ll give rights back to Americans while enforcing our immigration laws (we're doing the reverse now). We’ll be pro-life, as our commitment is to respect the value of all individuals, and we’ll continue to keep government out of the lives of individuals. The funny thing is that this approach will result in improved morality and values. You see, our morals don’t come from Washington.

It's time for real Republicans to take the party back. Limited government is just that. There's nothing conservative about big government, regardless of how much one loves the laws it passes.

Everyone: Vote for freedom. Tell your Republican congressmen that they don't have to legislate everything they personally oppose. So-called big government conservatism isn't conservative. It's statist, and giving power to the state is a loser for freedom. Perhaps, some day, we'll have a government that leaves some decisions up to the individual.

The engineer writes:
"It's time for real Republicans to take the party back. Limited government is just that. There's nothing conservative about big government, regardless of how much one loves the laws it passes."

I think that's very legitimate: run as the party that wants to disband any aspect of government that's not clearly enumerated in the constitution - start with Social security and Medicade - I'm sure all those oldsters will line right up - because they actually vote!

Okay Big Dog
Limited government isn't the same as disbanding it (although I'd personally be very happy to get rid of the programs you listed, especially Medicaid). People voted for limited government in 1980, 1984, 1994, and many other times in our history.

Democrats and Republicans should not be in a contest to see who can grow government the most, at least IMHO.

LIMITLESS STUPIDITY???
I just can't believe that people of Massachassa love Ted so much.....
Are they drinking stuff we don't know?
Are they smoking dry dung of bats?
Are they the total FUBAR... ??????

So far, only the FUBAR seems to explain their voting record...
:----[

The People Need Protection From Business
"The people" have sustained some recent blows precisely because that bad old Nanny government was NOT looking out for them. Just last night I was watching on TV a news spot about toys imported from China. A majority of toys sold in the United States are now manufactured in China. Last week it came to light that a popular Thomas the Tank Engine train set was painted (in China) with lead paint, which has been definitively linked to chronic lead poisoning in children. The week before that, toothpaste sold in the Caribbean was contaminated with a poisonous additive---photos of little kids who DIED from using it were shown (lying in their coffins) in my morning paper. The month before that, American pets died from eating contaminated petfood.

I'm not quite sure where conservatives stand on this. I read all the time the on townhall that government should not regulate manufacturers and that the free market should rule, and that if a product is bad, people just won't buy it---but what about if they bought it just once and now their children are already sick or dead? Sorry, too late. In any case, we can't regulate China---but are we even regulating the quality of imports? I don't think so.

Or maybe there's some notion out there that it's just another liberal obsession with PC to worry about lead paint being used on items likely to be gnawed by a young child. After all, the Data Quality Act, which allows Bush's budget office to re-write scientific data found by any federal agency, was found to be responsible for allowing playground equipment to be treated with arsenic (google for details). Anything that makes an extra buck for business may not be PC but it's OK.

Since Bush took office, the Zeitgeist in Washington is that business is good and government regulation is bad. But business has no conscience, and its job is to make money. That's why we need a balance. No individual, no matter how conscientious, is equipped to analyze the paint on every toy or the chemical content of every tube of toothpaste. We need assurance that our government, which is (or at least used to be) equipped for such surveillance, is protecting us.

I absolutely don't see how the individual consumer can exercise sufficient diligence. Major "trustworthy" American food companies---one article focused on Sara Lee---are using additives imported from China. I read nutritional labels. I am not a chemist. I see that the product contains "stabilizers" or "gluten". That tells me nothing. And that could get me dead.

Republicans are pro-business. I can grasp that. But they also claim to be pro-"The People". They aren't, unless their system can provide us with reasonable protection. Diethylene glycol in the toothpaste is just as bad as a terrorist in an airplane.

To Shells
Re your calling attention to a spelling error, let me share this recent townhall experience which I found stunning. In a heated discussion of homeschooling, I pointed out the many syntactical errors in a website written by homeschoolers and posed the question, how can people teach what they appear not to know? Specifically, the error was disagreement between pronoun and its antecedent noun, as in "a child should be given their lessons"---child is singular, their is plural, thus the two disagree, and they are supposed to agree, as in "children should be given their lessons". My correspondent (an avid homeschooling advocate) responded, "Who made that rule up and why should we follow it?". So if we disagree with an accepted usage of standard English, or perhaps with a standard spelling, we are free to disregard it, once we have declared ourselves free.

This responses raises many questions. If being "free" means trashing the public school system, arguing that academically prepared teachers are less suited to teaching than unprepared amateurs, finding the rules of grammar and spelling irrelevant, and believing that no existing standards are acceptable guides of what children need to learn, then indeed we are "free".

Let us continue to other issues close to the hearts of townhallers: no government regulation of our food and drug supply or of other consumer products. No prescriptions required for buying drugs. No helmet laws. No carseat laws. No speed limits. No special laws for teenagers learning to drive---let parents alone decide what goes. No laws about whether parents can serve liquor at their children's parties. And absolutely no constraints on business.

Folks, in what way is any of this conservative? Because it sounds like what the very liberal hippies used to say back in the 1960's---that "the rule is that there are no rules, and if it feels good, do it".

Why Kevin McCulloch is utterly loathsome
1) He must have sacked his subeditor who thought up imaginative titles for his columns.
2) He is totally incapable of accepting any responsibility for anything - all of the world's ills are the fault of liberals. Or gays. Or atheists. Or feminists.
3) He seems to think he is a "real" man when all he is capable of doing is whining like little girl.
4) He masks his often odious opinions by claiming non-stop to be a Christian, even though he displays minimal, if any, Christian virtue in his writing.
5) He seems to believe war is a better way to spend public money than tackling poverty.
6) He believes the world is black and white with nothing in between. It's his view or no view.
7) He has anus eyes and makes Peter Lorre look trustworthy. No wonder he's got such a beef with women.

TheEngineer
Why is it you still believe that the Republican party is worth saving? Exactly how is it any different from the Dems, as both are headed by internationalist elites who quote the Constitution and will of the people for nice sound bites, but do not truly believe in those principles?

I realize that TH is a Republican site, and that makes it that much more important to offer an alternative idea. We need to get past this Dem/GOP/MSM propaganda that the two parties are the only choices we should have. It is time to break up this happy little arrangement of the elite power brokers, shake them up, and start a revolution in this nation in how we are going to govern ourselves.

No matter how much you wish to hold on to your Republican beliefs, the the truth is that if we elect another elite from either party, this great nation and our children will only have a future of more big government, declining personal freedoms, and a growing influence of the internationalist, socialist, NWO types who hate America. You don't accept that? You still want to rally around the Republican banner? I would love for anyone to explain how allowing the elites, no matter which party, to win the Presidency in 2008 will help this country. All that will do is increase their hold on power and allow them to continue to ignore the Constitution, rule of law, and will of the people! As they are shoving this amnesty down our throats, will you still be posting here telling us that we need to elect a Republican President?

If anyone cares to actually do something to stop this continued theft of our birthright, then you need to recognize that the elites will not stop until they are throughly disabused of the notion that only they are worthy and capable of rule. The old time tested formula of telling a lie often enough until it is believed and accepted is working well these days. Both parties, with the help of a complicit MSM perpetuate that myth over and over, and we have been duped continually. We always vote for the lesser of two evils, always hoping for the different result that never seems to happen.

I urge all to visit my website, JOEOLIVAFORPRESIDENT.ORG. We do have a choice and an opportunity to reclaim our inheritance. We can do it if we have the guts and the faith to trust ourselves. Unless and until we make a change in our thinking and escape the propaganda, we will find the two parties growing ever stronger, pursuing their agenda despite what we may wish for our country, of which we happen to be the rightful owners. There is only one way to stop the elites and begin a journey home to the true principles that made America the greatest nation this world has ever seen. WE MUST DENY THE ELITES THAT WHICH THEY DESIRE ABOVE ALL, THE PRESIDENCY! That is the first and best thing we could do. You should visit my website and see that there is a choice for our country. Check it out, you will not be disappointed. Thanks, Joe

..ahem..
Hey Kevin-
I don't care how many single moms called your show "insulted" at the idea of getting money from the government for doing positive things, but thusly claiming that "liberals" don't care about the people is just downright absurd. An extra $35/week as long as you hold down a 40hr/wk job sounds like a pretty good idea; $35 is half of one lunch to you, but it's groceries for most of the week to a whole lotta Americans, so their paychecks can go towards childcare and gas.

How in the world could you possibly see incentives for positive growth in poor neighborhoods as a BAD thing? Better a bleeding heart than none at all...

I also don't care how many polls you see "proving" that the American people are so whole-heartedly against gay marriage, the fact remains that Americans do support equal rights for all Americans, and wanting to retain marriage for heterosexuals solely and denying equality to gay Americans are not one and the same. Basic recognition of our relationships, with benefits similar to marriage, should be a compromise we can all agree on. I'll admit I think we yell about Marriage itself a little too much when we could gain identical legal benefits from civil unions, but the fact remains that we deserve equality. And America agrees.

Critical Bill
How much money above the multibillions we have to eliminate poverty since the 1960s should we spend?

BTW, I truly think that instead of brain, you have the excrement of a bovine creature between your external auditory inputs. Ergo, you cannot write anything but that.

Hmmm.

"[The people of Massachusetts would define marriage as between one man and one woman] on the basis that such unions offer the safest, healthiest environment for children to grow and prosper in."

No evidence provided, but let's not bother about that. Let me ask the obvious questions:

Could not the same argument be used against inter-racial marriages?

Should people who don't want to have children be allowed to marry?

What about children born out of wedlock? If we are defining marriage for the reason stated, should we not mandate marriage for parents, regardless of their desires, for the good of the children? And in that case, what happens when parents have children with different partners?

Why does the government sanction marriage at all?

.

BS Detector
Ha! You might not want to plug your detector in to Townhall.com. "Overload..overload...can not compute... KaBOOM!!" lol

Anyway, thanks. The question "Why does the government sanction marriage at all?" is exactly what needs to be debated. Conservatives love to accuse libs of treating the people like children. This issue is a perfect example of that hypocrisy.

Big Dog
Polling a bunch of Democrats and discovering that 60% want America to surrender in Iraq does not prove that the American people are against our presence in Iraq.

Dem vs GOP
I don't think that there is a war between Democrats and Republicans; however, a war between liberals and conservatives is another matter.

I think right now MOST Republicans consider themselves to be conservatives. The Republicans that give their party such a bad name are the RINO's, or as some call them, the Rockefeller Republicans, or truthfully known as liberals wearing Republican labels - Specter, Collins, Snowe, Hagel, Coleman, Graham, Voinovich, Smith (OR), Hatch, Warner, etc.

I consider Kevin McCullough to be a strong conservative and for values that America believes in (or used to, maybe I should say).

My fondest wish is that the Conservatives just flat out leave the turncoat Republicans and create the Conservative Party. There are a bunch of conservative Democrats that would probably jump at the chance to leave the "nanny" party.


AliveInHim
Sorry to burst YOUR bubble but we are a REPUBLIC! We are held to the rule of law and not mod rule of the people. It does NOT matter at all what the people in that area want to do. Thir only right is to nominate people for office and vote. Once that person is in office they can do anything they want as long as it is in context with the law. The represent us part comes from nomination and voting, after that they do as they please.

Cblue
The reason that the "people" (I use the term loosely) keep voting in Kerry and Kennedy to the US Senate is that the "people" in Massachusetts are ignorant.

They do not understand that Kerry and Kennedy are pandering to the "people", not actually supporting them. The last thing Kerry and Kennedy want is for the "people" to have a voice.

Sure, a Mass. citizen can get Kennedy to make an end-run around the federal bureaucracy, but Kennedy also wants open borders and amnesty and losing the War against IslamoFascism and high taxes and isolationism.

So you guys in the Bay State have no problem with socialism or diminishing America as long as Kennedy and Kerry are doing you favors.

You're a bunch of self-centered little hypocrits. Next election, why not secede from the union? Good riddance, I'd say.


To Lilly
I have a friend who chose to home school her three children. I can accept her reasons why, considering the public schools in our area are less than adequate and are also filled with gangs. Yes, grammar school gang members, who would've imagined...
So, in that aspect, I do believe home schooling may have to be the alternative. But, you are right that most parents who take upon themselves to home school are untrained and can be educating their kids improperly. They may feel "If I didn't use this as an adult, why should I teach my children the same thing?!"

As far as government regulations, some laws set into place are a wonderful thing, and others, well.....I do feel my rights are being tred upon. What I like to call "Health Nannies" a liberal or a republican state of mind? I think to be fair it may be bi-partisan, perhaps with a little left leaning.

As far as seat belt, child safety seats and serving your child alcohol (the examples you brought up) I believe those laws are needed. Some parents should not be parents and are truly irresponsible. Unfortunately, laws to do need to be in place to protect the children who are unable to protect themselves.

Conservatives are not a "if it feels good do it" type of group. Just because we wish our McDonald's fries were not cooked in vegetable oil, and KFC didn't succumb to having zero tran fats for their fried chicken, and those yummy muffins in Starbucks didn't also rid all of the trans fats in their pastries so that they are bland and pointless and guilt-free.

If I wanted to go to Las Vegas, city of sin, and go out to dinner, there is no more smoking section. If I want to go to a bar and have a couple drinks and a smoke, I am not allowed to do that anymore, regardless how badly the business owner wishes I could and 90% of his customers. I'm forced to stand outside at least 20 feet from my building with all my co workers because we're required by law it's necessary we never smoke in a public building, no matter how badly the owner of our company wishes we could come back inside.

There are laws, and there are laws. There are responsibilities and there are responsibilities. As an adult, we should be allowed to make our own choices. But laws protecting children, that's a different ball of wax.


Spelling
"Who made that rule up and why should we follow it?"

Or as Daddy says when we point out his numerous spelling errors, "Well if B U R D doesn't spell bird, then what the hell does it spell?"


Elites
The concept that Ted Kennedy and John Kerry are better equipped than "We the People" to best decide public policy is absurd.

But what is frightening is that they are being allowed to do it, and not just for the people of Massachusetts.

Kerry came within a few percentage points of being President.

And look at all the damage Kennedy has already done. An amnesty bill in '65, No Child Left Behind. His take on the Medicare prescription Benefit boondoggle is that it is a "good start". A good start to what? Bankrupting the country?

And then there is the latest attempt to open our country's borders to anyone who can fly, drive, walk, swim, or pilot a boat across them.

McCullough's article uses gay marriage in Massachusetts as an example, but the illegal alien amnesty bill is more universal and more dangerous.

It is said that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Does it not logically follow that significant power corrupts significantly?

Why Liberals...
...loathe the people? Because the people never vote or act in the revolutionary manner first outlined by the real heroes for all liberals: Mr. Marx and Mr. Engels. This was so obvious even in the lifetimes of these erstwhile gentlemen that their ideology calls for a "vanguard" (that is, a self-appointed elite whose members, "enlightened" by the writings of their ideological masters, must guide the proletariat in the proper direction). Its quite simple, really. The Democraps in Massachusetts are merely very pale carbon copies, so to speak, of their ideological masters.

I call upon the real people of Massachusetts to convene their own statewide representative council, have the council vote in favor of the normal definition of marriage, then everyone is to act as if that was the legally binding definition.

Dear Critical Bill, JeffRob, et al
Please move on to Moveon!

wiseone says:
"The concept that Ted Kennedy and John Kerry are better equipped than "We the People" to best decide public policy is absurd."

More absurd than George Bush? Could anyone make things worse?

CPTBman says:
"Polling a bunch of Democrats and discovering that 60% want America to surrender in Iraq does not prove that the American people are against our presence in Iraq."

True - but since you've got nothing to prove otherwise (aside from your wishful thinking), it's all we have to go on - and the number is more like 70%

The engineer writes:
"People voted for limited government in 1980, 1984, 1994, and many other times in our history."

I disagree - Republicans use terms like "limited government" to fire up the base, but they never actually "limit government" - and they sure NEVER run against the big entitlements that really soak up our dollars. IOW, they lie to get elected...

some conservatives loathe "the People"
lets see "the people" want the U.S. out of iraq but do they listen, no, they think they know better than the 70% of the rest of the country.

as far as liberals and their beliefs, certainly most conservative writers and especially mccullough has no idea what liberals think.

there are 10's of millions of liberals and unlike alot of conservatives we do not walk in lockstep and all believe the same things.


Just some thoughts
A few random musings before lunch ends and I have to get back to it. Sorry I can’t stay and debate all day, but I have to satisfy the greedy capitalists.

Lilly, with regard to your post that people need protection from business, what do you think is going to happen to the company that imported the train set, or the company that sold the contaminated pet food? My guess is that they are going to spend years in court defending themselves, or paying massive settlements to end all of the class-action suits brought against them. So to say there is no consequence is untrue. Concerning the toothpaste in the Caribbean, where was it produced? Was it the U.S? If not, I don’t see your point. Are we to regulate the world? Getting back to the pet food, let’s say an angry employee poisoned it on purpose. Does even that let the company off the hook with regard to litigation? I don’t believe it does. And, how many people do you figure will no longer buy product from that company? You say a business’ job is to make money, period. Exactly. How much money will be lost in sales, penalties and improved quality control to ensure it doesn’t happen again? How many companies have gone bankrupt and disappeared because of asbestos lawsuits, when at the time they produced/sold it, it was not regulated? The law and the market did that, not pre-emptive regulation. My point is, you can regulate all you want, but you cannot protect every individual, no matter how hard you try. If you are concerned with what goes in to your food, your safest bet is to grow your own, or deal with an organic establishment that can guarantee what is/is not in food.

The only guarantee is to test every piece or morsel of every product, food or drug being sold. How practical is that? If your goal is to completely shut down the world economy, fine. But the only way to completely protect yourself from the big, bad capitalists is to grow your own, eat your own and make your own. Sorry if you don’t like it, but your argument that most Townhallers are against any form of regulation of our food and drug supply is at least disingenuous, and at most an outright lie. The market does punish transgressors, just not to your satisfaction. Welcome to the world.

Critical Bill, I was pretty well convinced last week that you are not worthy of debate and completely uninterested in fact, but your post about Kevin McCulloch confirmed it. I actually come to Townhall looking for new and interesting viewpoints; do you ever have any? Last week, I read a story about abortion on this site, can’t remember exactly which one. Someone posted that there had been in the neighborhood of 30 million abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade, and you scoffed and said you found that hard to believe. I believe you also accused said poster of getting their info from some hateful conservative website. Well, being interested in fact over invective, I took 5 minutes to peruse the website for the Centers for Disease Control (a truly Christian, gay-bashing, racist, bigoted website). What I saw was that it appears that the number of REPORTED abortions (some small states, like California, didn’t report in some years) ran in a range of between 800,000 and 1.4 million. And, if I take the low end of the range and multiply by the number of years since Roe v. Wade, hmmmmmmmmmmmm…………..very interesting. I didn’t even go look to make a point about abortion; I don’t have a dog in that fight. I guess what I’m saying is why not leave out the Critical and just be Bill? Unless the Critical stands for critical of anyone who doesn’t agree; that would be fine.

Back to work. See y’all again some time. Sorry to hit and run.


religiouslib
Sorry, but this is one "people" who does not want the troops out of Iraq until the war is won!

And you know what, it really ticks me off to be told that "all Americans" want what you want...another Vietnam...another Congress-run rather than military-run war!

Let the military do what they have been trained to do! They know the risks and if they were allowed to utilize their training, this would have been won a long time ago!

religiouslib
The latest polls I've seen show support for staying in Iraq at 59%-66%.

Where does your 70% figure come from? Is that the number that favor withdrawal, or the number that now think it was a mistake to invade in view of the length of the war and reports on few WMD's being found?

The polls I have seen show a large number of Americans who now think it was a mistake still think we need to finish the job now that we have deposed Saddam.

CPTBman says:
"Polling a bunch of Democrats and discovering that 60% want America to surrender in Iraq does not prove that the American people are against our presence in Iraq."

My sentiments exactly! I'm not receiving any phone calls asking my opinion!!


religiouslib
70% does NOT want us out of Iraq, that 70% was people who did not think we were doing a good job. The nation as a whole does not support leaving Iraq to be a blood bath like we are seeing in so called "Palistiene", what they want is a winning strategy and people who have the balls to do what needs to be done, even if its not pretty.

One major factor of the public opinion is how the media reports all that is going on over there and how they dont report what is going on over there. The media has been the biggest fighter against the US since Vietnam. Today they continue to push out enemy propaganda and try to undercut the efforts of our troops along with most of the DNC. IMO they are traitors and should be tried as such in a military court of law.

Just remember, Bush may be unpopular and hated by both liberals and conservatives... but he is almost 2x as popular as leading Demorats are... though once again the media seems to omit that information.

wiseone
You are indeed "wise"

Thanks for all your posts!

Big Dog
I think Kerry would have been AWFUL, far worse than Bush, as Prez.

That said, I agree that Bush's stance on illegal immigration is a very good example of the point McCullough is making in this article.

Bottom-Line
Liberalism 101 = Overeducated, Elitist, Snobs who think “We The People” are too stupid to take care of ourselves and are too stupid to know what is good for the country. After all, they do it in Europe (open borders, gay marriage, legalize narcotics).

Worst of all
The damage Ted Kennedy has caused to our country over the years can never be undone. Why he continues to be re-elected can be attributed to one thing, the Boston political machine.

There are actually many conservatives living in the state, but the sheer numbers of Boston "on-the-dole" or political payback situations is beyond comprehension.

What flavor of tyranny?

Once we start defining morality by a consensus of 51% of voters then the next step in the advance of tyranny is morality defined by the will of the elites as now seen in the once great state of Mass.

Those who think that morality can be defined by men will have as many flavors as there are men. By what standard will we measure truth? Truth is given over to autonomy and relativism. What is happening in Mass. is the inevitable result of a culture that loses its reference to the absolute.

A testimony to the depravity of man is that he hates, distorts and mocks that which God has given for his good. The Bible gives us vital information about ourselves and the world in which we live. Since we are finite creatures this information cannot be known apart from revelation. Those who reject the revelation know that there is something beyond ourselves and that the universe is not all there is. Because we are image bearers, we all seek after that which brings meaning.

The history of philosophy is the history of autonomous man’s failure to discover what the Bible provides for him; that is, a point of reference to the absolute. He has now given up the search and as Mr. Schaeffer says, modern man has escaped from reason into the irrational. His search for significance has ended in despair.

The path back to reason and sanity is to return to the reference point that provides the only true basis for law and morality, because it reflects the moral character of the Creator of the universe.

The world says that the Bible brings tyranny. They will not submit to what God defines as good and abstain from what He says is bad. They will not abide by His morality, but flaunt their sin as if there is no real moral guilt associated with the breaking of His Law. They think that the day of accountability and judgment will not come. They do not want to hear the Scriptures because they testify of a Christ different from the one in their imagination…

‘The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.’ [John 3:35-36]


Big Dog
Can things get worse than bush? Yep. Or did you forget the Jimmy Carter years? You must have.

Time to Redefine Liberal
If I were a terrorist I would join the Liberal Democrat Party.

If I were a terrorist politician I would get backing from the Saudi's and win a seat somewhere in the Democrat Party.

If I wanted a party without God I'd join the Democrats.

If I wanted to destroy the family I'd join the Democrat Liberal Party.

Lets just call the Democrat Party the Liberal Party. There is nothing Democratic about it.



JeffRob
Government supports and promotes marriage because it supports and promotes civilization. You want religion out of it because religion blatantly says "no" to homosexuality. Marriage and the unionization of two people is a product of religion. Much of what takes places in a ceremony as traditional is also the product of religion. At least be honest in your rejection of religion. You don't like it because it tells you "NO!" Don't even begin by bringing up discrimination. We discriminate every day in every way. Even you. You discriminated against religion when you chose to be non-religious. You even discriminate when you shop. The trouble is your misintepreting religion.

Fear not
There WILL be an election in 2008 and I can't know how Democrats and Republicans are going to fare, but I'm sure conservatives are going to win going away.

A Challenge for jcdean
Hey, jc: A consistency test: would you make the same argument if the same legislators had voted to outlaw abortion or had voted in favor of traditional marriage?

SSGTRET
In her book, "Useful Idiots", Mona Charen pointed out that despite all of the TALK about how the the populace opposed the Vietnam war, there was NEVER a single comprehensive, credible poll, election, or referendum indicating that a majority of Americans supported withdrawal without victory.

And that was BEFORE the genocide in Laos and Cambodia.

BEFORE the Democrats in Congress reneged on the deal they made with Nixon in which they promised to continue financial and military hardware support for the South Vietnamese.

You have it exactly right. If the libs were willing to sell out the South Vietnamese even though that war was started by Democrats, what kind of rat's butt do you think they give about a bunch of Iraqis in a war started by a Republican?

Lolo
"At least be honest in your rejection of religion. You don't like it because it tells you "NO!""

When have I said otherwise? I have no problem stating loud and clear that I reject Christianity insofar as it tells me who and who not to love. And even then, i only have a problem insofar as it's used to advance an anti-gay political agenda. I don't care what Christians believe, and I don't care how you want to define Marriage. Knock yourself out.

But the ability for two consenting, adult individuals to form monogamous relationships and have those relationships be acknowledged by the State, is something I will never stop fighting for.

Christianity has NOTHING to do with it, except insofar as it claims to be Original, Sole Creator and Proprietor of Marriage, which is just hogwash.


"The trouble is your misintepreting religion."

What am I misinterpreting?! Again, I never claimed that Christianity should allow gay marriage. I couldn't care less about Christianity. But this is NOT a Christian country, and the freedom to marry is being denied to millions of Americans.

at least...
our officials dont sell crack! rudi i so done... as are the other nominees from the pubby's.

the demise of the neo cons is so rife with fun for libs...

Grammar and syntax
Parents who are homeschooling today were taught in the public schools by "academically prepared" teachers.

I have rarely met anyone under forty, in the past two decades, who could properly construct a sentence like the one described by lilly. I suspect even lilly herself may have "issues" with the traditional, correct construction: "A child should be given his lessons." Sexist, of course.

I rarely encounter anyone at all, of any age, who BOTHERS to construct such a sentence correctly, even if he knows how to. The "singular noun... plural pronoun" usage has, regrettably, become entrenched in our vulgar modern English. The putative sexism of using the singular masculine pronoun may have had something to do with that. I myself have no problem with using the masculine singular to refer to a child, or any other human, but I suspect quite a few people have defaulted to the plural "their" as a means of communicating with efficiency and neutrality. "His or her" is unquestionably a syntactical mess, and only gets messier with increased complexity in the train of thought.

It's too bad that the vast majority of Americans who were educated in the public schools by the academically prepared have been unable to persist through life with ideal sentence construction. No, it really is. Few Americans today are able to use objective pronouns correctly either. Something drives them to say "Mom gave it to Susie and I," with a confused but absolute certainty that "me" would be incorrect in this case, because of the "Susie and" preceding the pronoun.

Don't even get me started on the imaginative and erratic use of apostrophes decorating modern communication. Just go back to contemplating the academic preparedness, and the educational priorities, that produced today's American idea of English grammar and syntax.

jcdean
This may have already been covered but I had to skip to the bottom due to time constraints. You are correct about ours being a republic, not a democracy and that an elected official is not held to doing what they say will do except at reelection time. This is not the case in this issue. The state legislature is holding the political will of the people captive and doing it illegally. And they know it. The petition to include the marriage proposal has cleared every legal hurdle placed before it and even surpassed some very dubious attempts to derail it (even had to be redone). They are REQUIRED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE to consider the measure and add it to the next state ballot. Despite the fact that the law is crystal clear and they know that they are breaking it, they are doing so anyway. The liberal press is complicit in not hammering them for this as they would if it was an issue near and dear to their left-leaning hearts. I wish the author would have detailed this- it would have saved a lot of hot air. Does this settle it?

dyerje
Dont get to worked up, their doing they're best!

The Question Was Asked
There were several references earlier to the poisoness train set from China, and the open ended question, what about these other products.?

The toothpaste was from China, and the poisoness pet food was made using a product from China that had been loaded with a poison that increases the apparent protein value. They didn't think we would notice since we have time to look at about 1% of what we are importing. The testing after the fact(dead pets) showed the problem. After all if a little is OK then let's put some more in an up the protein read out.

In other words the Chinese were cheating on the protein value, and there are going to be more cases like these. The new Chinese business man is going to try to make as much money by ANY means as possible. No matter what it takes.

By the way, the toothpaste thing wasn't limited to only the Caribbean. It's all over Central America, and numerous people and children died from it.

Bowl of Chinese rice anyone.??.

The Question Was Asked
There were several references earlier to the poisoness train set from China, and the open ended question, what about these other products.?

The toothpaste was from China, and the poisoness pet food was made using a product from China that had been loaded with a poison that increases the apparent protein value. They didn't think we would notice since we have time to look at about 1% of what we are importing. The testing after the fact(dead pets) showed the problem. After all if a little is OK then let's put some more in an up the protein read out.

In other words the Chinese were cheating on the protein value, and there are going to be more cases like these. The new Chinese business man is going to try to make as much money by ANY means as possible. No matter what it takes.

By the way, the toothpaste thing wasn't limited to only the Caribbean. It's all over Central America, and numerous people and children died from it.

Bowl of Chinese rice anyone.??.

CapeConservative wrote:

"Sorry, but this is one 'people' who does not want the troops out of Iraq until the war is won!"

How will you know when we get there?

"And you know what, it really ticks me off to be told that 'all Americans' want what you want...another Vietnam...another Congress-run rather than military-run war!"

This war has been as politically-run as any other. From Shinseki saying that keeping the peace in Iraq would take several hundred thousand troops (and his subsequent snubbing by senior administration civilians) to General Casey's apparent opposition to the surge (and his subsequent replacement as coalition commander), this administration has ignored or steamrolled senior military staff every time it was convenient in its execution of this war.

"Let the military do what they have been trained to do! They know the risks and if they were allowed to utilize their training, this would have been won a long time ago!"

You folks need to wake up. Nobody with any bona fides outside of the administration believes this. Many experts, both military and civilian, stated correctly that a stable post-Saddam Iraq would require the presence of tens of thousands of American troops for years.

The war against Saddam took days. The peace will take years. This fact was understood by the administration, which chose to play it down in advance of the war, when such information could have negatively impacted the selling of the war to the world.

.

Having trouble getting into TH
Double post was due to inter net problems.

wiseone wrote:
"The latest polls I've seen show support for staying in Iraq at 59%-66%."

Gallup: "Most Americans support the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but there is only limited support for an immediate withdrawal (there is also only limited support for increased troop levels)... A majority of Americans support the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq... Since the summer of 2005, opponents of the war have tended to outnumber supporters.A majority of Americans believe the war was a mistake."

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=1633&pg=1

.

CVN65
Nice, Enterprise. :-)

Every now and then it's just fun to answer lilly in kind.

Next installment: the egregious inability of modern Americans to conjugate in anything but the present tense. "If she would have" when people mean "If she had".... etc, etc.

Why does government sanction marriage?
BS detector,

Too much of the debate about gay marriage focuses on the incorrect presumption that government's role in marriage is to either allow or forbid two people from getting married.

In reality, government's sanction of a marriage informs EVERYONE ELSE in our society which "marriages" we are lawfully oblgated to honor and respect as legal marriages.

Two homosexuals can (and many such pairs do) live together in all of the same, identical trappings as hetero couples. They do not need the government's sanction or blessing to love and care for each other; or to, as the traditional wedding vows state, take each other for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others, till death does them part.

And gay marriage advocates will be the first to confirm this reality when it is pointed out to them. When an opponent of gay marriage asks, "Why do you need to be legally married?" the response comes back that gays want the same automatic protections heteros get. They want to make health care decisions for their incapacitated partners. They want automatic inheritiance of the estate without going through probate. They want community property rights in divorce (how's that for irony?).

These are things that government imposes on the rest of society. Example: If my father was gay and he died I would expect to inherit his estate as his next of kin. But if he has a boyfriend the case gets complicated, and there may be a legal struggle. But if that relationship was a legal, sanctioned marriage, same as heteros have, the boyfriend's right is certified by default.

Unfortunately for gays and their advocates, the courts have historically required that the government have an interest in making such a requirement of society as to recognize the union of two gays and honor and respect it as a marriage. The government's interest in requiring the recognition of heterosexual marriage is that such is the best way the species can procreate. To this point you have already posited some good questions.


"Could not the same argument be used against inter-racial marriages?"

Answer: No, not legally. Such a law would violate constitutional protections against discrimination because of race.

"Should people who don't want to have children be allowed to marry?"

Answers: (1) Government's role in marriage is not to "allow" marriage. It is to require the citizenry to honor the relationship as a marriage. (2) Investigations into the ability of a couple to procreate would violate their right to medical privacy. It would also be subject to the state of medical technology and thus a transient determination.

"What about children born out of wedlock? If we are defining marriage for the reason stated, should we not mandate marriage for parents, regardless of their desires, for the good of the children? And in that case, what happens when parents have children with different partners?"

Answers: (1) Government's role in marriage is not to allow, forbid, or require marriage. It is to require society to honor the relationship as a "marriage". (2) For years society attached a stigma to an unwed mother for the very reason you are addressing (aside from moral questions about promiscuity). Society deemed it then (and many of us still deem it) to be selfish and irresponsible for a woman to give more thought to her desire to be a mother (or her desire for sex) than for the well-being of her child. It has been LIBERAL policies that have largely removed this stigma, much to the harm and distress of millions of fatherless children who are living in poverty as a result. Now the same libs who did away with the stigma are using this bad social policy to promote their attempt to force us to accept and honor gay marriage. (3) Government does claim an interest in protecting the interest of children born out of wedlock, hence paternity laws for child support. This method of managing government's interest in the well-being of the child does not force anyone into marriage nor does it force society to recognize such a forced union as a mariage.

BTW - if you are looking for support for a government program to formally discourage women from bearing children out of wedlock you can count on my support. The information I've read says that if women would wait until they are married and until they and their husbands graduated high school before having kids, 96% of all chidren that are currently living in poverty would be lifted out of it.

Your examples of fatherless children and women who have children by multiple fathers as a justification of marriage are nothing more than using bad policy that has already done severe damage to the institution of marriage to justify tearing the institution down completely.

All of this is addition to the fact there is nothing, NOTHING, that can be accomplished by legalizing gay marriage that cannot also be done through civil contracts that would remain private matters between the two partners of the union and would leave the rest of society alone. If the happy couple really love each other enough this should be no barrier at all. Which leaves me to wonder why gay marriage advocates are so intent on forcing their peculiar definitions of "marriage" onto the rest of us.

GitYerHandOuttablahblahblah
Been posting on Townhall for two years. Been griping about Kevin McCulloch for as long. Never seen your name here before. I'm sure I'd remember it too. I've p*ssed off a handful of people here; engaged in decent debate with an awful lot more. What I wrote about McCulloch is opinion - after all, this is the site "where your opinion counts". Being blackballed by you... well, I'm sure far worse things will happen.

BS detector
And your Gallup poll conflicts with my post ... how?

Meanwhile Rasmussen shows 59% supporting remaining in Iraq until the country is stable despite the fact that a majority now think the war was a mistake.

wiseone wrote:
"[G]overnment's sanction of a marriage informs EVERYONE ELSE in our society which 'marriages' we are lawfully oblgated to honor and respect as legal marriages."

But in what ways is the citizenry legally required to "honor and respect" a marriage?

"Example: If my father was gay and he died I would expect to inherit his estate as his next of kin. But if he has a boyfriend the case gets complicated, and there may be a legal struggle. But if that relationship was a legal, sanctioned marriage, same as heteros have, the boyfriend's right is certified by default."

Why would you expect anything? I'm not a lawyer (see, I'm not purely evil), but does not the deceased have the right to bequeath his property as he wishes? What would be different if he had a will rather than a boyfriend or a marriage?

"The government's interest in requiring the recognition of heterosexual marriage is that such is the best way the species can procreate."

Does anybody really believe that we need government sanctioning marriage to help us procreate?

"'Could not the same argument be used against inter-racial marriages?' Answer: No, not legally. Such a law would violate constitutional protections against discrimination because of race."

It hasn't been so long since miscegeny laws were commonplace in the south, and "states' rights" advocates claimed they were legitimate. But anyway, if we won't allow a man to marry another person of the same sex, why shouldn't we prevent him from marrying a person of another ethnicity?

"Government's role in marriage is not to allow, forbid, or require marriage. It is to require society to honor the relationship as a "marriage"."

But why, and in what way?

"For years society attached a stigma to an unwed mother for the very reason you are addressing (aside from moral questions about promiscuity). Society deemed it then (and many of us still deem it) to be selfish and irresponsible for a woman to give more thought to her desire to be a mother (or her desire for sex) than for the well-being of her child."

Why no mention of the father?

"It has been LIBERAL policies..."

Here we go.

"It has been LIBERAL policies that have largely removed this stigma, much to the harm and distress of millions of fatherless children who are living in poverty as a result. Now the same libs who did away with the stigma are using this bad social policy to promote their attempt to force us to accept and honor gay marriage."

Please. I guess women being able to earn their own living is a bad thing too? Maybe you think women being able to own property is bad, too? Next stop, the eighteenth century!

"BTW - if you are looking for support for a government program to formally discourage women from bearing children out of wedlock you can count on my support. The information I've read says that if women would wait until they are married and until they and their husbands graduated high school before having kids, 96% of all chidren that are currently living in poverty would be lifted out of it."

Again, apparently, it's all the women's fault. Go ahead and cite some sort of source for your assertions.

"Your examples of fatherless children and women who have children by multiple fathers as a justification of marriage..."

MY example was parents having children by multiple partners. You've changed it into women having children by multiple fathers. Why no thought about the responsibility of men?

"[T]here is nothing, NOTHING, that can be accomplished by legalizing gay marriage that cannot also be done through civil contracts that would remain private matters between the two partners of the union and would leave the rest of society alone."

Isn't this true of standard regular old marriage marriage?

The root question remains. Why should government sanction marriage?

.

Well, lets see now... Bloomberg is...
... a republican. Or at least he was until yesterday. Now he's... well your guess is as good as mine.

Hopefully he will run for President as an Independent and suck enough votes from the republican rolls to guarantee a Democratic victory in 2008.

Heaven knows no self respecting democrat would vote for him.

Big Dog
Please cite the poll that says 60% of the American People want us to surrender in Iraq. I would wager the question does not ask that specifically. I will await the link.

sheesh
Observant grammarians will have noticed this droll, "people voluntarilly choose to be ignorant". I won't mock or name he author but it's pretty funny. I suggest that some commenters might benefit from a ciivcs tutorial. Sens. Kerry and Kennedy are the targets of your hydrophobia in Congress. The State Legistlature is the target of some's homophobia. The Commonwealth recognizes the will of the people. The signatories of the petition and protesters determined to turn back the clock of time have been out of time for three years. I'm happily married to the same man for thirty years. Neither ours nor anyone eles's marriage has been affected by the loving couples who have weddings with all the trimmings that all of us have had or mean to have. The dreaded Agenda isn't shoving anything in your face. You just insist shoving yours in theirs. Finally, I'm an elitist and all, you know how we are so I can't resist the temptation to point out the ironic. Commenters have brought to task others who deride Mr. McCullough's appearance. But you're right, Michael Moore is a filthy, obesely fat, Svengali, without whom civilation would not be crumbling.

typos not withstanding
Someone smote my keyboard.

Kevin McCullough and Ken Mehlman
share one think in common.

Being CLOSETTED HOMOSEXUALS.

Kevin, I don't even think you two should just shut up.....but atleast be HONEST.

As Good As It Gets..
Well, so much for imprecise psychics..

That, and uhm, oh yes..

None of us are perfect..

We all make mistakes..

And even typographical errors..

Everyone here..


Next topic..

This article is right.

I can mainly speak from a Conservative perspective.

Years now-ironically Socialism's cry all about for "the people"..today's Socialist party, the Democrats, are anything but..

The will of the people..
the cry of the majority in many instances,
particularly when it comes to the institution of marriage, and the family..
has largely been shut out -by a militant, barbaric, liberal few..

And we are left with Republicans fighting over wars-when we have got just as legitimate a cultural war right here in these United States..

The current Conservatives in power, and the Republican party, may not be all you've dreamed them to be..

But given a choice between solid Communists, like Hillary Clinton, and Obama, and other Republicans ,OR Ralph Nader-which would you choose?

Before you major in the minors, and we lose another election over issues over which
"we the people" have,(honestly)little control..

I urge you to think about the lesser of two evils..

Or just voting for a man who is better than 2 out of three..

No one being perfect, in my humble estimation,
this is as good as it gets..

Now..

I know someone is going to call me a fathead about this..

Or talk about some guy's eye balls looking like a vital organ..

*Shivers* *winces*, *rubbing head*

But these ways of talking are a cruel and silly diversion..

They are meant to throw us off these meaningful issues, and shake the mind from real Truth..

And why are commenters slandering the reputation of the very happily married, heterosexual, Mr. McCullough here anyway?

Is there not some sort of intervention by Townhall when post-ers make slanders saying these kinds of things???

Are we to allow strangers to post lies, as if they are true, to the harm of another's reputation?

But, indeed, I digress..

MrsV wrote:

"But given a choice between solid Communists, like Hillary Clinton..."

"Is there not some sort of intervention by Townhall when post-ers make slanders saying these kinds of things???"

Hmmm.

.

To dyerje
I doubt that anyone observes formal rules of syntax when speaking informal colloquial English. But when a student undertakes to do formal writing, as would be expected in a college research paper, then adherence to the rules will be necessary. And the rules are the rules. I can't count the number of times I had a parent say to me, "Why did you give my daughter a C on her paper when it sounds just fine to me?". What teachers are paid to do (those stupid teachers in that dreadful public school system that townhallers love to rant about) is to know why sometimes written prose isn't "just fine" even though it may sound so to a loving parent. It won't sound fine to the professor who one day supervises that child's Master's thesis.

Regarding creative use (or non-use) of syntax and mechanics (think: ee cummings) a good approach is to tell the student that deviation from the rule will be accepted when he or she is able first to explain the rule that is being broken and then explain what is accomplished, stylistically, by breaking the rule. Writing should be more than a symbolic throwing up all over the page.

I am fascinated that conservatives, who object so strongly to social promotion and touchy-feely curricula, take a romantic position regarding the use of language.

To Audi
Re BURD: Probably you have heard this before. George Bernard Shaw argued that the word "fish" should be spelled "ghoti". The gh sound says f in the word cough. The o sound says e in the word women. The ti sound says sh in the word nation. (I am explaining this badly but you will see what I mean---I am in a hurry here.) So if you add up gh + o + ti, logically you should end up with "fish".

English spelling isn't logical. I can't imagine how non-native speakers ever master it. Once upon a time, writers of our language spelled pretty much any way they wanted to; English spelling wasn't standardized until after printing was mechanized in the early 1800's.

And now good night. This has been fun.

To BS Detector
You have to turn your BS meter down from High to Pretty Low when reading townhall posts, otherwise its system will short out. In these here parts, a Communist is defined as anybody who thinks it's morally wrong for a CEO to be paid $250 million a year while across town a child dies for lack of medical care.

Slander? Non inventus est. I heard Rush Limbaugh declare that Bill and Hillary Clinton had definitely murdered Vince Foster.

To dyerje, One Mo' Time
I really do have to go to bed, but can't resist this. Do you really think that saying "Mom gave candy to Susie and I" was taught in school? That would be public schools only, of course; homeschooling parents would know all about objective case pronouns. By magic.

Do I think that teaching academic subjects to the young should be Amateur Night? No. To borrow from Bettelheim, "Love Is Not Enough".

cvn65
CVN65 writes: Wednesday, June, 20, 2007 4:30 PM
dyerje
Dont get to worked up, their doing they're best!

YOU MADE ME LAUGH. I think that's the first time ever that I've been moved to laughter on TH.

It felt good. Or is it well? Oh well.

In response to Lilly
"This responses raises many questions. If being "free" means trashing the public school system, arguing that academically prepared teachers are less suited to teaching than unprepared amateurs, finding the rules of grammar and spelling irrelevant, and believing that no existing standards are acceptable guides of what children need to learn, then indeed we are "free"."

Let's talk about 'trashing' the public school system: there is no doubting the fact that the public schools are doing an extremely uneven, and not infrequently poor, job teaching even basic reading skills to students. If you doubt this, you have only to look it up.
And telling the truth is not 'trashing'.

Well, as to your academically prepared teachers (whose ranks i intend to join once I retire from the Army), they are not succeeding in teaching children very well, based on the percentage of kids who graduate high school unable to effectively read.
Is that the fault of the teachers? Most often, the answer is no.
Whose fault is it? The obvious and correct response is that, in general, it is parents' fault. Many parents have no interest in assisting the education process. Others, perhaps being single working parents, simply have or believe they have insufficient time to help the kids with their homework or review before tests. In still other cases, the parents do what they can, but are unable to effectively combat the culture of dismal performance engendered by other kids whose parents *do* abrogate their responsibilities.

It is this last group of parents, the ones who do care and do try but nonetheless see their kids at risk of sinking toward the lowest common denominator of certain public school subcultures, who most often home school.

And you know what? As imperfect as the instruction those kids receive from their parents may be, they still very often exceed the standards set by their public school peers in the more troubled school systems of our nation. Not to mention the fact that home-schooled kids are less likely to be involved by certain of their undisciplined friends in criminal activities.

Is there a tradeoff involved? Yes. But no parents who love their children and take their parental responsibilities seriously would leave their children in some of these public school systems purely for ideological reasons. What counts is not 'supporting the public school system', but rather making their children graduate able to read, write and do math effectively (and not having a criminal record is certainly a priority as well).
Now, there are parties who insist that parents should put some ideological loyalty to the public school system ahead of their responsibility to their children.
I can't tell you how much contempt I think those parties deserve.

Second response to Lilly
"I am fascinated that conservatives, who object so strongly to social promotion and touchy-feely curricula, take a romantic position regarding the use of language."

No need to generalize. I take no 'romantic position' regarding the use of language.
Indeed, as one example I have frequently corrected certain parties' confusion about the meanings of 'approval' and 'tolerance'.

Another example is the use of the term 'escalation' with regard to President Bush's surge. Nothing about that surge represented an 'escalation', but when you don't care about honest, precise speech, you can make any sort of foolish misrepresentation you wish.

I suppose what I'm getting at is this: there's plenty of fault to go around, so you need not pretend that a casual approach to the English language is the sole province of conservatives.

In response to Lilly
"Do you really think that saying "Mom gave candy to Susie and I" was taught in school? That would be public schools only, of course; homeschooling parents would know all about objective case pronouns. By magic."

Parents who homeschool their kids might not *have* to learn about objective case pronous by 'magic'; they might *learn* about objective case pronouns because they STUDY to ensure they give their children good training.
However, you seem unable to admit that any such parents might put forward this sort of effort, or be this responsible. You seem to have something against homeschool parents just because they refuse to submit their kids to some of the worst of the public school environments.

Second, I might ask this: have you found that all or most public school students use proper grammer?
That's not my experience. I'd argue that student outcomes are not exclusively determined by having NEA dues-paying teachers.

tailil2long
am an elected school board member in california in a very urban area.

your conclusions about public education are based on the exceptions rather than the rule.

a high school student in california must pass an exit exam to graduate.
certainly there are poor performing schools but under no child left behind any parent can transfer their children to a better performing school if they wish.
there are also many altearnatives like charter and magnet schools.
one of the top high schools in america is a school consisting of only disadvanted students here in southern california.
they graduate every single student and 90% of those students go on to college.


i will give you my personal story.

my son is entering his senior year of high school.
his school and lifestyle is very similliar to mine growing up in the midwest except the academic standards are harder.

his school is predominately hispanic but the drive to achieve academically is a big part of the general attitude for most of his classmates.

he is a varsity basketball player and his best friend his a preachers kid and his girlfriend will go to stanford or harvard.

i bring these things up not to brag but to make the point that things are not what they are protrayed in most conservative conversationa about public education.

as far as home schooling. for every success story you will find a failure story.
many of the parents who attempt to home school just are not qualified and their kids end up in very bad shape when it comes to college and careers.


finally, the public education system is the bedrock of american culture and assimition in this country.
my son has studied many of the same thing s i did 30 years ago and has gotten bascially the same education.
whether it is civics (which contrary to conservative myth is still a required class) or extracurricular activities there is a commonality that american kids all experience.
by the way, my son is in the largest group on campus called the g-zus army which (again contratry to conservative myth) is a Christian group and is sponsered by the student government and is featured in the year bookl and such.
there are actually 2 Christian groups on his campus.


i could go on for hours but i hope yhou get the picture that education is not the dire straits that some on the right wish it to be.

Please Don't Miss This For Truth..
Slander - legal definition


"Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community."
___________________________________________

MrsV wrote (On two separate and distinct and different areas of a reply):

"But given a choice between solid Communists, like Hillary Clinton..."

"Is there not some sort of intervention by Townhall when post-ers make slanders saying these kinds of things???"

BS Detector wrote: "Hmmm."
______________________________________
mr. BS, I am assuming you were making some effort to suggest that my comments-which you sliced and reposted together-in two different areas above-were *my*-supposedly in your eyes-slandering Hillary Clinton. But nothing could be further from the truth.

In addition to this, you added a comment I made here about REAL slander-the comments some made about Mr. McCullough-seeking to place his personal persuasion into question-onto a comment which I made that was TRUE about Mrs. Clinton as I see it..You then tacked on your contribution-In your mind the telling (?): "Hmmm", as if you've found some prized nugget, but go fish...

The irony here IS, that in placing two different, and completely unrelated, as *I* meant them-comments together-you have only succeeded in making an illustrative point about *YOUR* view..You have done nothing insightful, when it comes to comments about my points...

This is because-virtually EVERY SINGLE TENANT, and every single law...and every single aspect of how the Clintons and company move-are-by and large, - forms of COMMUNISM, with much Socialism, and Social Darwinism, mixed in..Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of history, and an open mind to TRUTH-knows this...In your wild and woolly effort to make some kind of cool point, (you haven't) you tried to misrepresent what *I* was originally saying. So, in a real sense, your cut and paste was also a side effort to slander ME.

The original person being slandered here-and for a long time now by abusers at this column-has been Mr. McCullough and family-not counting the ad hom attacks by others against those who agree with ~KMC...

And the fact that the Clintons, and those who walk hand in hand with today's Democrats are ALSO
lockstep Communists is not just a rumor mr. BS-At this point it is an understood TRUTH. Thus making it NOT a SLANDER, but a FACT. So you see, it is elementary, and the legal definition WILL show-a slander is not a slander if it is the Truth. But, by any standard, many have been actually doing a dishonest AND unlawful thing-by actually practicing the act of slander towards Mr. McCullough here.

I advise anyone with even a fleeting or mere curiosity about Truth and how that fits in in today's society-and related topics-including details about today's very public Communist party, to check out these links and audio broadcasts by the outstanding and insightful author Mr. Frank Perretti. They are hysterical, but, sad in their implications. Yet, as he shares on these broadcasts, I see so much of what, and who, he is referring to-sadly- right here. Tragic, really...

What We Believe (Part 1 of 2)
http://listen.family.org/daily/A000000331.cfm

What We Believe (Part 2 of 2)
http://listen.family.org/daily/A000000333.cfm

The broadcasts can be found here:

http://listen.family.org/recentdaily/

CharlieS
"BUT, I still disagree with anyone who thinks Ron Paul deserves any serious consieration. In my opinion the guy is nuttier than a Christmas fruitcake."

Excuse me... "nutty"? So Charlie, are you some kind of a lefty or something?

Paul is the most conservative member of Congress. Hands down. Never voted for a tax increase... NEVER. A+ rating from Gun Owners' of America. A Constitutionalist. Never voted to increase the size of the Executive Branch. Never voted yes to increase House members' salary. Turned down his Congressional pension.

Sits on three Committees:
* Committee on International Relations
o Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere
o Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
* Committee on Financial Services
o vice-chairman of Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
o Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy, Technology, and Economic Growth
* Joint Economic Committee


Yeah, uh huh, he's a real "nut" alright, IF you're a lefty socialist or a neocon.

Mrs.V
"This is because-virtually EVERY SINGLE TENANT, and every single law...and every single aspect of how the Clintons and company move-are-by and large, - forms of COMMUNISM, with much Socialism, and Social Darwinism, mixed in..Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of history, and an open mind to TRUTH-knows this."


Oooooohhh... I like your style.

mrs v and liberty
anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of history understands you know nothing about communism.

sheeesh

MrsV wrote:

"This is because-virtually EVERY SINGLE TENANT, and every single law...and every single aspect of how the Clintons and company move-are-by and large, - forms of COMMUNISM, with much Socialism, and Social Darwinism, mixed in..Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of history, and an open mind to TRUTH-knows this...In your wild and woolly effort to make some kind of cool point, (you haven't) you tried to misrepresent what *I* was originally saying. So, in a real sense, your cut and paste was also a side effort to slander ME."

Concepts you obviously don't understand:

Communism
Socialism
Truth
Slander

Seriously, so many folks who cruise around believe they know an awful lot more than they actually do. Communist? Are you kidding? Give me some evidence that either Clinton, or any other prominent Democrat for that matter, has ever seriously argued for the ownership of the means of production by the state, or the abolition of private property, or any other element of communism?

You cry about people "slandering" a pundit but have no qualms about leveling the most serious slurs you can conceive of at your opponents. Not sure what that says about you.

.

GiveAways
I'm convinced that the way to independency and confortable wealth is the infusion of a substantial sum of tax-free money. Notice I did not say interest-free. Because the tax system is designed to inflict punishment on initiative which leads to additional earnings which are taxed additionally and the tax can not be adequately predicted, but interest is stated and can be budgeted, planned for in advance. That is to say, hypothetically, if someone received a $100K tax-free gift or loan, that person with wise allocation could be set for life, as in retirement after a normal work-life, even if that money were subject to interest. Most persons in our society even those recently educated in government schools are intelligent and savvy enough due to the profit oriented free-enterprise system we still observe could make predominately wise choices in the investment of such a sum to make at least a comfortable retirement possible for themselves without Social Security. The piddling sums of monthly entitlement allocations serve only to increase your servility, but if everyone were to be awarded a Citizens Endowment [note the word citizen] of $100K at age 25, after either a college graduation, technical graduation, apprenticeship, or military service, or other suitable accomplishment, there would be no excuse for other entitlements.

Looks Like....
those people loathing liberals have been joined by lots or should I say Lotts of republican senators.

IF
George Bush was called a democrat and Ted Kennedy was called a republican would it matter?

Watch what they do and not what they say.

Both are owned men, and owned by the same super rich men who own our government.

I beg to differ
You wrote: "Last week the voice of the people was shut out of the process of weighing in on one of the most explosively controversial topics of the day - redefining marriage to include additional sexual couplings.

It is the prevailing wisdom to allow the people to decide the weightiest matters of our time but not so to the ruling Marxist Democrats of Massachusetts. 151 political elites in the combined houses of the state legislature voted AGAINST allowing the people of the state a voice to speak. They voted to prevent allowing the people the chance to decide for themselves how they would like to define marriage. 151 political elites prevented 6,400,000 plus citizens the right to say yes or no to the most controversial legislation of the day.

They did so because it is widely believed based on reputable polls that were the people of the state to decide for themselves how marriage would be defined that they would do so by saying simply, "marriage is a sacred sexual union of one man and one woman." They would do so on the basis that such unions offer the safest, healthiest environment for children to grow and prosper in.

And of course they would be right.

But the people be damned, the 151 elite have political debts to pay!"

The People of Massachusetts DID have a voice to speak. We spoke with that voice last November, when every member of the legislature stood before the voters and asked to be re-elected. When the votes of those same senators and representatives in the previous Constitutional Convention were well known by all the voters who cared to know. When a Democratic candidate for Governor, who opposed the amendment, ran against a Republican who favored the amendment.

What was the result? Not one state senator who voted against the amendment was defeated for re-election. Not one state representative who voted against the amendment was defeated for re-election. The Democratic candidate for Governor defeated the Republican by 66% to 30%.

In a republican democracy, we elect representatives to enact our laws for us. They did what they were elected to do.

You're wrong
Liberals support "the People" by definition. Who the hell are you talking about?

Supporting "the people"
Lycan writes: Sunday, January, 20, 2008 12:58 AM
*** "You're wrong
Liberals support "the People" by definition. Who the hell are you talking about?"

By definition? I don't think so. By and large, liberals support their often idealistic causes, not "the people".

Would the term "populist" more accurately someone who supports "the people"?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.