172 Comments

1. Steve:

I think one thing you can is that McCain is not too old for the presidency. This choice shows he has a youthful mind.

I am not sure why gay marriage is easy. People can be friends and love each other without getting married. To me marriage is for children. Maybe those gay couples that do (via a surrogate or adoption) should have a special status. I am not sure why it needs to be called marriage. They have a peculiar relationship (outside the norm). It can be identified as such.

Aug 30, 2008 - 3:18 pm 2. Diana Denton:

Thank you.

I have been moved by your article because it is truthful. Abortion is ending a person’s life. People make the choice to end another’s life under many different circumstances. Some I find the decision terrible as in abortion and some I find necessary as happens in war. I always find it an abomination when the persons making that choice hide behind the pretense that they are not making it.

I share your joy in your granddaughters. What fun you are in for!

Aug 30, 2008 - 3:20 pm 3. Tom:

“Still, I remain pro-choice because I would prefer the government not be involved in these highly *personal* decisions”. I’m an atheist and a fence-sitter on abortion, but who exactly is the person in personal? Since it clearly isn’t the fetus (or your statement wouldn’t make sense) I suggest this is a case of petitio principii.

Aug 30, 2008 - 3:22 pm 4. Michaelyi:

Still, I remain pro-choice on the issue of private vengeance because I prefer the government not be involved in these highly personal decisions of whether or not my loved one’ murderer should live or die.

Gee, with that “pro-choice” game, one can justify all sorts of moral relativist mischief, yes?

Aug 30, 2008 - 3:46 pm 5. OmegaPaladin:

Roger,

I’m rather pro-choice myself. However, I think the government has the responsibility to protect humans from being murdered. If life begins at conception, then eliminating it eliminates a life. I can’t see how that is not the government’s job. I think life begins when brain activity begins in the fetus, and I think the fetus should be protected after that point.

Aug 30, 2008 - 4:23 pm 6. John Moore:

OmegaPaladin states the strong non-religious, libertarian argument for the pro-life side.

The choice (in almost all cases) was to have sex, with whatever consequences, intended or otherwise. After that, it’s protection of life..

Aug 30, 2008 - 5:00 pm 7. stace:

Congratulations to you and your family on your new granddaughters. They are a blessing.

Aug 30, 2008 - 5:03 pm 8. heather:

congratulations on your grandchildren! And congratulations on your son and partner’s going the very difficult route they have taken, in order to bring those children into the world. They will be wonderful parents.

And you are discovering, Roger, one of life’s penultimate gifts: grandchildren.

Aug 30, 2008 - 5:06 pm 9. heather:

Now, you are the older father of a young daughter, so this may be old news to you; but I have discovered that what a grandchild wants she and he gets, even if it means a truly long quest through every store in town and finally, the ‘net, so I can provide t-shirts with Super Mario pictures to a little boy! (Did you know it is IMPOSSIBLE to find Super Mario stuff now? It is, apparently, so last year.)

Aug 30, 2008 - 5:09 pm 10. Lem:

Still, I remain pro-choice because I would prefer the government not be involved in these highly personal decisions.

Palins’s stand to the contrary, Alito and majorities after republican appointment majorities have failed to exorcise Roe as the law of the land.

If Roe is ever reversed it will be because the pendulum that created it will have swung in favor of life.

Palin’s abortion stand is in a sense… an infield fly rule

Aug 30, 2008 - 5:26 pm 11. Lem:

Oh, IAF.. congratulations Roger.

Aug 30, 2008 - 5:28 pm 12. Terrye:

Roger:

I hope you see this, maybe PJM could pursue it. Over at Hot Air Ed Morrisey has a post up about a conversation between two prominent Democrats on a plane. It is outrageous and it is on tape, this is an excerpt of the post:

Red State blogger “absentee” had the good fortune to travel from Denver to Charlotte after the Democratic convention with DNC National Chair Don Fowler and Congressman John Spratt of South Carolina. His fortune turned into Fowler’s misfortune, as it turns out the blogger videotaped a conversation on the plane between the two prominent Democrats, who seem pleased about Hurricane Gustav. In fact, Fowler apparently believes it to be divine intervention, as shown in this clip:

The hurricane’s going to hit New Orleans about the time they start. [Chuckle] The timing is — at least it appears now that it’ll be there Monday. That just demonstrates that God’s on our side. [Laughter] … Everything’s cool.

This comes just a day after Brother Michael Moore saw the Face of God in a natural disaster bearing down on New Orleans. Did the Democratic convention hold a seminar in Denver on how to take glee in the misfortune of others, as long as it works for you politically? While we’ve come to expect this from Moore, who is obnoxious even at the best of times, seeing this kind of weird schadenfreude from elected officials and high-ranking party members comes off … rather ghoulishly.

Aug 30, 2008 - 6:12 pm 13. Mike_K:

I’m pro-choice and have even performed abortions. I didn’t like it but I was trying to do my share as a surgery resident assigned to OB-GYN. It is clear that life begins at conception and, while I believe that the mother has the right to end the pregnancy while the fetus is too small to live on its own, I think she must accept that fact that she is ending a life. The evasion of that fact is the moral failure of the pro-choice people. Sarah Palin is an example of someone living her principles. I’m sure she would not chose to have a Down’s baby if she had the choice without abortion.

Also, it seems that the failure to educate children in school has extended to the fact that abortion was legal before Roe vs Wade. I did abortions in 1969, four years before the decision. Reversing it would simply return the issue to the states.

I think Palin is an inspired choice by McCain and it is driving the left nuts because they cannot figure out how it affects their under-qualified candidate’s chances.

Grandchildren are always a blessing.

Aug 30, 2008 - 7:10 pm 14. ahem:

Roger:

As a Christian, I am not against giving homosexuals the same civil rights as married couples–this is the United States and everyone should enjoy equal rights under the law–I’m against co-opting the word, ‘marriage’. Marriage is a sacrament of the church. To re-define it is to take one more step in toward making the sacraments of Christianity and Orthodox Judaism unconstitutional and illegal. That’s what the fuss is about: stop trying to criminalize traditional religion.

I, too, was once pro-choice. It ain’t a clear-cut issue. For example, I doubt you’ve ever considered that by acquiescing to the idea that an unborn child can be murdered because its birth is inconvenient, you are also abandoning the idea that every other human life is sacred–even your own, even those of your children. No one imagines that this is true, but it is.

Once you legitimize the utilitarian arguments of the pro-death crowd, it is merely a question of time until you discover under what conditions society believes your own continued existence is inconvenient. Life is sacred for all, or it is sacred for none.

Aug 30, 2008 - 7:12 pm 15. Roy Lofquist:

Dear Roger,

Doting grandparents – payback.

As to the issue of same sex marriage:

“It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless.”

Russell Kirk

Regards,
Roy

Aug 30, 2008 - 7:14 pm 16. Huan:

firstly, congrats

secondly, i support civil union for gays as well as straights. such unions should have all the legal status necessary to protect those within the union.
i do think marriage is about children. thus they should have certain tax breaks.

Aug 30, 2008 - 7:47 pm 17. Martha Bouza:

Regarding abortion,as an Obstetrician who has delivered thousands of babies it is impossible not to see life in an ultrasound 5 to 6 weeks after conception. You see this little heart beating…it always brings a smile to my face. I can’t understand why people say there is no life in these babies. With the modern modes of contraception the failure rate should be very low. Yet most of the women seeking abortion did not use contraception. Abortion is their method of contraception. Pretty sad.

Aug 30, 2008 - 8:15 pm 18. Charlie (Colorado):

Havign been married — to a woman — I see no reason gay couples should get to avoid it.

Aug 30, 2008 - 9:01 pm 19. Lem:

In nearly every abortion, a decision is being made between the life (or convenience) of the mother and an already growing and developing life with unique DNA. As much of a religious agnostic as I am, I am seriously disturbed by that.

Thats by far more specific than Mile High DemOsthenes.

“…whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity… is above my pay grade.”

Here he is the orator in another venue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsJLdE9DELs

Aug 30, 2008 - 10:20 pm 20. TexasDude:

“Still, I remain pro-choice because I would prefer the government not be involved in these highly personal decisions.”

Well, the federal government became involved with Roe v. Wade.

So, today, you are saying that it is OK for the federal government to be involved, but not for the individual state (which is more responsive to the people than the feds are)?

Before, at least, each state could make up its own mind; which is more inline with your libertarian leanings.

Aug 30, 2008 - 11:20 pm 21. chuck:

seeing this kind of weird schadenfreude from elected officials and high-ranking party members comes off … rather ghoulishly.

But it is hardly new, it was there during Katrina and in Pelosi’s and Reid’s opportunistic exploitation of the Iraq war. The almost complete moral corruption at the top of the Democratic party was the major reason I left it. And I don’t think the Republicans are immune either. Our elite political class as a whole is down the tubes. That corruption is a major reason that Sarah Palin is such an outstanding pick. Forget the evangelicals and social conservatives, people just want someone normal who actually gives a damn.

Aug 31, 2008 - 12:07 am 22. Derek:

Humanity has almost always practiced some kind of form of abortion or infanticide. The body itself aborts a lot babies due to genetic defects. And yes life begins at conception. The question is when do we decided to give it the mantel of humanity and thus giving it human rights?

Personally I am favor of a few days after birth. I doubt many people would agree with me but I am not taking a position that’s uncommon in human history.

Aug 31, 2008 - 12:24 am 23. Dick Stanley:

I’m pro choice, but Palin’s views on the subject don’t bother me. The laws are set. They’re unlikely to be overturned.

As for her deciding to have the Downs child, I can’t imagine anyone aborting such a child on purpose. Downs kids can be pretty bright and with sparkling personalities. I have known a few. The main tragedy of their lives is that they usually die young.

As for Sarah, herself, I think she has succeeded in politics because she has the common touch. It can only help her, and McCain who, BTW, has raised a record $7 million in the past 24 hours.

Aug 31, 2008 - 12:25 am 24. Pajamas Media » On Palin, Abortion, and Gay Marriage:

[...] Read the entire story here… [...]

Aug 31, 2008 - 1:26 am 25. suli:

Steve:
Okay, so marriage is for producing children?

Nobody checked our fertility when we applied for our marriage license. Did they check yours?

Aug 31, 2008 - 1:47 am 26. katinga:

The main point of the OP is that abortion and gay marriage are not linked.

I say they are, for the simple fact that marriage is about life: child bearing and the rearing of children by a mother and a father.

Both abortion and gay marriage attack this principle that have been held up at least as ideal by societies everywhere and throughout time. That is, until some “bright” people in the 20th century began to claim otherwise.

Gay marriage and abortion are in fact forms of social engineering propagated by a judicial coup d’etat, not by democratic action. We have already seen the effects of abortion: acceptance of illegal immigration (that’s the dirty little secret of both parties vis-a-vis funding social security). Who knows what the ultimate effects of allowing gay adoptions will be?

Aug 31, 2008 - 1:57 am 27. Matt Sanchez:

The “uncomfortable fact” you must “wrestle” with is a fatal fact for aborted children. Great that your son concocted a child in vitro, but would he have cancelled his plans and terminated the kid if the baby was diagnosed with Down Syndrome while in the breeder’s belly?

The “highly personal decision” of deciding whether to let a child live or not is EXACTLY why a government exists–to protect its citizens. It’s always creepy when an savvy, older, and literate human conveniently forgets that for political expediency.

Aug 31, 2008 - 2:13 am 28. mike:

i’d say that choosing to keep her baby, palin is the ultimate pro-choice candidate.

Aug 31, 2008 - 2:21 am 29. John Swaine:

Personally I’m a catholic so I believe life begins at the moment of conception. Yet I’m “pro-choice” – why?

Because if it wasn’t legal, then women would still abort but would do so in backalley clinics that endanger their lives as well as the lives of their children.

There is only one morally adroit position to take when deciding to have an abortion – that is to be so nonchalant that it barely registers on your decision making. If it is considered to be AT ALL difficult as a decision, then you’re already acknowledging that it just isn’t right.

It’s either a ball of meat which means nothing or it’s a life. Suggesting any middle ground is just a way of assuaging our consciences for making an extremely selfish decision.

Aug 31, 2008 - 2:55 am 30. John:

Firstly, I am pro-life. The left needs to get their head around the idea that a woman who had an abortion is strickly defined as: “The mother of a dead baby”. I think Sarah Palin is awesome.

On the issue of gay marriage, I’m somewhat ambivalent. However, the gay men I’ve encountered tend towards many, and short, relationships. I’m not sure I’d trust them to be responsible, loving, long term parents. Marriage is for children, and for that there must be a mother and a father. Can we ask which role your son plays here? What happens to these innocents if the two gay men decide to go their separate ways? Children are not decorations to display, nor do they validate a bad idea. The decision your son and his partner made to bring these little babies in to the world was probably not the wisest choice anyone ever made.

I hope for their sake that you and your wife are fully prepared to assume some responsibility for the well being of these grand daughters should that gay marriage go toes up.

Aug 31, 2008 - 2:55 am 31. gina Mallet:

surely contraceptives are easily available?

why abortion unless circumstances are exceptional?

Aug 31, 2008 - 3:07 am 32. Jonathan:

Roger,

Congratulations on your grandchildren and your open and receptive recognition to the fact that Raphael and Phillip *are* family. If your son and his husband are not married (this question is directed to anti-marriage-equality proponents), where does that leave their daughters? Don’t they deserve the legal/civil/financial protections granted to other-sex married parents?

The definition that “human life begins at conception” is another matter. “Conception” is more of a religious term as in Mary’s “immaculate conception”, than it is a medical term. The medical community uses the terms “fertilization” and “implantation”. Because the beginning of life is not clear-cut. There are birth-control devices such as the IUD which prevent implantation. The use of the IUD, one of the most popular birth control methods must be considered “murder” by the “conception” definition.

There are other issues with the “conception” definition. Men in their 40’s have “weak sperm” and if they attempt to father children, the mothers experience a 30% miscarriage rate. If “conception” is the beginning of life, these older fathers must be seen as statistical murderers. Should they be prosecuted in the event of a miscarriage? Should fertility doctors warn them that there is a 30% chance that their “child” will die? Should that “child receive funeral? Eulogy?

John Swaine,

Interesting analysis. I’ve found that pro-choice women who have had abortions are deeply affected, and have anti-choice women describe the procedure as “like getting a tooth pulled”. That’s why the most extreme anti-choicer leaders like Jan Larue (chief counsel for CWA) demand a nanny state.

http://www.equalityloudoun.org/?p=337

Aug 31, 2008 - 4:51 am 33. Carl Zeichner:

If choosing to end the life of a month-old child is a personal choice which the government should not interfere with, does that mean that in the course of an armed robbery, the choice of the thief to kill or not to kill is a also personal choice?

Aug 31, 2008 - 5:31 am 34. Ronnie:

I find the argument that abortions will continue if not legalized used by Roger and some other commenters very dubious. You don’t make something legal that should be illegal because people will do it anyway. What kind of logic is that? It is good thing we don’t use it for every other act against another(e.g. rape victims, murder ). If the baby is being murdered(i.e. innocent life being ended ), then we are to protect it with every fiber of our being and especially a life that has not chance of protecting itself.

Aug 31, 2008 - 5:37 am 35. daniel:

“It would seem almost, dare I say it, unchristian.”

Unchristian yet Biblical?

Aug 31, 2008 - 5:38 am 36. Don:

it would be far better (and more apropos) to lump abortion and the death penalty together.

Aug 31, 2008 - 5:58 am 37. Jim M:

<>–Ahem

Brilliantly put, Ahem. You do not have to go far to see that this is indeed a slippery slope. Just read the Pajamas article yesterday about the Canadian health care system, in which it denies health care to the elderly (over 65, mind you!) because they are “too old”

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/hillarys-done-but-universal-health-care-proposals-live-on/

Aug 31, 2008 - 6:05 am 38. cedarford:

We have learned in the last 20 years that human reproductive physiology or God, take your pick, as rather sloppy with human embryos in terms of “wastage”, and also that the mammal females including human, have a mechanism to detect and abort unfit fetuses.

Somewhere around 55-60% of fertilized eggs in humans just get flushed out, failing to implant. So it is hard to see how God or evolution considered zygotes as precious or valuable to moral values or society as an 8-year old healthy boy. But since a mammal’s fertility period is limited to optimal years of about 25% of a lifespan, it makes sense for a mechanism to evolve and weed out unfit fetuses so the womb has more time availability for rearing healthy offspring.

And it is not PC, but the longer a women waits to have kids, the higher the incidence of defective offspring and the odds of getting pregnant decline rapidly after 30.

Even more un-PC, researchers now believe that unwelcome sex, even rape – has higher odds of conception than voluntary sex in mammals. And explainable by fighting, aggression directed at the female, female mammals flight from the breeding male, pain – causes more hormones to be released that boost chances of implantation. So that dominant agressive males get higher numbers of offspring rather than “sensitive, nurturing, caring, & timid” men, wildebeast, rodents

Dick Stanley – As for her deciding to have the Downs child, I can’t imagine anyone aborting such a child on purpose.

In a discussion on whether Palin made a rare or common choice, an article said about 80% of women elect to abort a Down’s Sydrome fetus, particularly if they plan on having further, healthy children,

Other severe defects – most worse than Downs – have even higher abortion rates if testing confirms the fetus is affected. There are conditions where OB/GYNs and geneticists almost universally recommend abortion, notably where a birth would be very-short lived and suffer greatly.

Aug 31, 2008 - 6:10 am 39. Michael Smith:

Since both the egg and the sperm are alive prior to the moment of conception, there is no way to support the claim that life “begins” at that moment.

Nor is there any way to support the claim that an embryo is a human being — not unless one is prepared to argue that an acorn is the same thing as an oak tree. The embryo is only a potential — not an actual — human being.

And even if the embryo *were* a human being, I see no way to support the notion that one human being has a right to the use of another human being’s body, against their will or their wishes and regardless of the risks it creates.

Furthermore, denying a woman the right to abort a pregnancy denies her a right available to every man: the right to enjoy sex without worrying about the risk of pregnancy. The law cannot function to deny to one sex a right available to the other.

Aug 31, 2008 - 6:14 am 40. Cassandra:

Something doesn’t add up. The same crowd who are pro gay marriage are against it in the case of heterosexuals. This is the wonderful story of the socialist food chain, or how they select their causes and which ones they throw under the bus (gays and feminists in favor of Muslims, for example). The criterion is ‘what will hurt Western civilization most?’ Answer that question and you hold the key to the postmodern dialectic: treason is the default position. Why would gay marriage hurt Western civilization? Because it saws away at a pillar of the ‘power structure’, traditional marriage. Marriage is a sacrament of the church (another pillar), it protects offspring and organizes legacies (also a pillar). Sentimentalism as in ‘unchristian’ is entirely beside the point.

Aug 31, 2008 - 6:19 am 41. Kirk:

“”"Also, as we all must acknowledge, if abortions become illegal, they will continue anyway and, once again, become more or less a privilege of the rich.”"”

Why must we acknowledge that? There is no standard for shameful behavior anymore. All the women that would feel mortally disgraced having a child out of wedlock please chime in here. All the 16 year olds so humiliated by their pregnancy they would drive to Mexico are … where? I believe your assumption is based on an outdated reality.

Aug 31, 2008 - 6:24 am 42. elfman2:

“life does begin at the moment of conception (when else?)” – Simon

There’s also the criteria of “viability” and “normalization of brain waves” (which come at about the same time). But that asside, I too am impressed with Palin “walking the walk”. Depending on one’s social circles, it’s easy to be pro-live or pro-choice. But I doubt most self proclaimed pro-lifers would bring a downs syndrome baby into the world.

Aug 31, 2008 - 6:32 am 43. syn:

The one common problem with both issues is that neither seem to be able to define clearly what is ‘it’ upon which the laws are based.

For example, we have laws based upon ‘fetus’ which can change according to time, gender and need. If She chooses to call the ‘fetus’ life then She can receive government funded pre-natal care. If She chooses to call the ‘fetus’ a clump of cells She can receive a government-funded abortion. Now if She askes He to kick her in the stomach while She is carrying the ‘fetus’ and He complies Her request and the ‘fetus’ dies then He is convicted for murder and sent to prision while She is free because of her “Right to Choose”. Roe v Wade is discriminatory in so many ways, it is a terrible law which was judicated rather than legislated and needs to go back to the state so that citizens can duke out the laws for themselves.

Now I am to accept something called “same-sex union between a man and a woman’ which is an irrational premise; there is no such thing as ‘union of same-sex opposites’. Further, homosexuals are not banned from marriage, in fact have married, have had children, have divorced then re-married to have more children since the dawn of marriage.

Gay activists are using a fallacy to judicated a law based upon meaningless words and in order to shut down any debate they will attack with highly-charged emotional words such as homophobe. In other words, if I ask a rational question about an irrational premise then I am charged and condemned as homophobe, such underhanded attacks is called ‘being progressive’

Laws built upon emotional irrationalism will only create a culture of basketcases hooked on Prozac, as so indicated by the number women over the age of fourty who are depressed and hook-ed on Prozac to help them forget.

Aug 31, 2008 - 6:39 am 44. syn:

One added point, I’m happy there are children in your family but what about the children’s right to their mother?

Yin/Yang, Sun/Moon, Male/Female, Egg/Sperm…this is the Law of Nature in life, there is no other way.

‘Same-sex parents’ is an irrational premise to The Laws of Nature.

The one thing humans cannot do is to defy the Laws of Nature.

You can call me homophobe all you want however this attack will not make such irrational emotionalism any less irrational.

Aug 31, 2008 - 6:52 am 45. Rachel Peepers:

To say that the government isn’t presently involved in the personal decision of abortion is appallingly ludicrous.

Women cannot legally have abortions after the third trimester.

That’s government involvement pure and simple.

As to lumping the two issues together, it’s easy to do because they’re both morally wrong.

Anybody who is pro choice, and who actually has an abortion is likely committing a serious sin. Anybody who has gay sex and marries the gay partner is likely committing an act of moral outrage.

Roger, just because you believe something doesn’t make it right. In fact, I believe your views on gay relationships and abortion are morally reprehensible. It doesn’t necessarily make me right. God makes it right.

Somebody here is right and somebody here is wrong. Morality isn’t relative. We’re not both right.

Not in the grand scheme of things at least.

Aug 31, 2008 - 7:02 am 46. Alice Roddy:

Michael Smith wrote: the right to enjoy sex without worrying about the risk of pregnancy. The law cannot function to deny to one sex a right available to the other.
Rights do not impose obligations on others; entitlements do. If anyone, man or woman, has a right to enjoy sex, who is obligated to be the partner in order for them to fulfill that right? Shall we pass a law requiring some people to volunteer for others who have not acquired partners the more typical way?

Aug 31, 2008 - 7:24 am 47. elixelx:

I take it that all you pro-choice people have no problem with my maid’s decision to abort 3 times because the doctor’s told her that she was carrying females and she already had three of those and wanted a male!

And then…and then…when she was told she couldn’t get pregnant again she paid for the in-vitro treatment. Two days before she was due to be injected, the lab was broken into and a number of tubes were damaged, including hers. She was devastated.

They have now caught the perps of the break in and have charged them with B&E; my maid, however, wants them charged with MURDER!

Aug 31, 2008 - 7:45 am 48. Saltherring:

There is a higher authority than the government. God, in his wisdom and compassion, has determined what is good and what is evil, and He will ultimately judge all humanity by the standard He has established, which is His Word. He states in Romans 1 that those who “approve” of those who practice evil (in this case, homosexuality) will suffer the same fate as the evildoers themselves. Perhaps you should read the book, Mr. Simon.

Aug 31, 2008 - 7:58 am 49. Charlie (Colorado):

why abortion unless circumstances are exceptional?

Why should someone else get to decide which circumstances are exceptional?

Aug 31, 2008 - 8:05 am 50. Charlie (Colorado):

Why must we acknowledge that?

Because we’re not dopes?

Aug 31, 2008 - 8:07 am 51. Charlie (Colorado):

I take it that all you pro-choice people have no problem with my maid’s decision to abort 3 times because the doctor’s told her that she was carrying females and she already had three of those and wanted a male!

Nope.

They have now caught the perps of the break in and have charged them with B&E; my maid, however, wants them charged with MURDER!

Isn’t the human mind amazing?

Aug 31, 2008 - 8:09 am 52. Jamie Irons:

Roger,

Congratulations! As the father of twins (boys, in my case) and two other kids (again boys!), I think I can safely say you’re in for some fun!

Jamie Irons

Aug 31, 2008 - 8:25 am 53. Dark Helmet:

Under no circumstancse should same sex people be ‘ married’ .

Under non circumstances should a same sex couple have children to raise.

Aug 31, 2008 - 8:38 am 54. JJ Joseph:

@Derek:
“Humanity has almost always practiced some kind of form of abortion or infanticide. ”

Yes, exactly. Some people have always had a notion to kill their new born babies. Sometimes they’re drunk. Sometimes they’re annoyed because it’s a girl. Sometimes they’re just plain annoyed at the intrusion. It’s a huge waste, and that’s why so many of us get irritated by the tradition of killing babies.

Aug 31, 2008 - 8:45 am 55. pappy:

where are the mans rights? just because it’s inconvenient for a woman to be pregnant, isn’t part of the murder victim his too? they both had the right to take an extra 2 minutes to practice some contraception. does the right to choose cover man slaughter, kidnapping incest or any of a stack of felonies? or just abortion? it seems to be a type of hold no one responsible.

Aug 31, 2008 - 9:14 am 56. Michael Smith:

Alice Roddy asked:

“If anyone, man or woman, has a right to enjoy sex, who is obligated to be the partner in order for them to fulfill that right? Shall we pass a law requiring some people to volunteer for others who have not acquired partners the more typical way?”

No, “the right to enjoy sex free of the worry of pregnancy” *obviously* presupposes that one finds a willing partner.

But that fact — the need to find a willing partner — doesn’t justify the notion that the *law* should force women to perpetually accept a risk that no man ever faces.

Aug 31, 2008 - 9:30 am 57. Bee:

You first must start with facts and reasoned arguments. Your post is utter nonsense.

Your reference to Palin’s decision is disgusting. Who in the world are you to pass judgment on the situation?

Next, your assertion that sexual orientation is predetermined is totally absurd. What do you mean by orientation? There is no scientific consensus on this front. Thus, your statement is just your personal feelings on the matter. Further, there is a huge gap between genotype, phenotype and behavior. So what in the world do you mean by your assertion?

Your reference to unchristian beliefs is even more absurd than your appeal to science. What specifically, is unchristian? Are you saying that Christ was unchristian for his teachings? Please explain your confusing assertions.

The connection of all this feeble thought to same sex marriage rights is the final link that you make that is totally absurdly. How does any of this compute?

This is all a joke?

Aug 31, 2008 - 9:42 am 58. view from afar:

Men do not get a choice for their genetic code to be defended because it is a woman’s body?
Excuse me, did I miss something-since when can we as human beings totally avoid the consequences of our acts? Risk-free sex is a myth.
You choose to have sex because some instinct deep inside of you is reacting to the fact that the genetic make up in front you (woman) creates a desire in you (man) to mix your genetic codes to create a pleasing and lasting result of that mix(you can inverse, I am responding to what I assume to be a man). So if no party in this arrangement is responsible to any other party in or that results from this arrangement what’s the point? To get screwed? Because it feels good? SO it feels good to beak into the bank and take as much money as you want and anyone who gets in your way is well, gonna get it? There is no responsibilty anywhere, therefore no adult behavior going on…like I tell my sons, if you’re going to sleep with a girl please realize that although it may feel good there is always the outside chance of a child being produced and is the person someone you’d trust with a) the choice of whether your children live or die? b) someone you’d trust to raise your child and finally make any decision for that child’s future? Woman need to think about in the other sense, is this guy worth tthe riisk of getiing pregnant, and having to deal with any of the heart-rending choices that brings up-carry out the pregnancy, keep or adopt, and if keep the child, is this guy really what you want as a presence in your life-because the child is half of him…

Aug 31, 2008 - 10:02 am 59. Anita Hope:

Does it not boil down to “education”. Girls are developing at a much earlier age and with what they see on the “SCREEN “, and the “FASHION WORLD”, boundries concerning sex seem not to exhist. The saying ” BABIES HAVING BABIES”, is full blown in our society today and we better face and find a solution to turn the picture
around.
Maybe “G-D” has wanted all of us to learn to be more tolerant of each other, allowing the term “Free Choice”
to be just that. We must all learn to live with our decisions in life. Science has come a long way and yet we in
this country have become educationally deficient in our schools, why? Over the past 20+ years we have heard
the same promises regarding our public education and colleges, yet we still are in trouble. Talk is cheap from
both sides of the old two party system.
And Rachael, are you saying “G-D” had nothing to do regarding the birth of those who are born gay, thus
questioning his wisdom, I hope not. ” G-D” is special to all of us as we see him and we should not presume
to question why. Most wars are caused by questioning the right of ” religious beliefs ” man’s way of trying
to prevent ” FREEDOM OF CHOICE “. WE ALL NEED TO LEARN TOLERANCE.

Aug 31, 2008 - 10:08 am 60. Anita Hope:

Rachel, just so you know, I am the mother of two and a grandmother plus being married for over 44 years. I
have had friends from all walks of life, Strraight, gay, and from all religious beliefs and just respecting them and their rights has made our relationships solid. People get along if you can accept differances, it all boils down to education…

Aug 31, 2008 - 10:18 am 61. Annabel:

Bee, what are you talking about? What exactly is disgusting about Roger feeling moved by Sarah Palin’s decision to have her baby? What judgement was being passed? He merely expressed his own admiration for her.

Aug 31, 2008 - 10:26 am 62. constitution first:

One need not be pro-life or pro-choice to be a true conservative. A true conservative would see that it just the issues with gay’s are not a legislative issue and are at best states rights issues. How can we claim to be conservatives while wanting to be intrusive into the lives of our citizens? In case anyone has forgotten Being a conservative has nothing to do with religion it’s a fascal idoligy.. The social conservatives are 9 times out of 10 not a true conservative. One only need to look at Bush to see that behind his social conservative mask is a closet democrat. The conservative party has been hijacked by religion and while I agree with the morals that are learned in church I’m not a fan of the thought that one has to be a “good” christian to be a conservative cantidate..

I know that someone in here will say I’m a libertarian with my views however I can assure I’m a true conservative with a love of the constitution which sadly most on the left and many on the right seem to only remember when it’s convienent.

I guess My point is. I could care less about someones stance on social issues that are states rights at best. The thing I care about and every conservative should care about is A: is this ticket fiscaly conservative. B: getting congress turned around we’re all forgetting we can accomplish so much more if we have congress. I don’t know why McCain is not using the approval rating of congress against Obama it’s the same platform so attack it.

Aug 31, 2008 - 10:49 am 63. John M:

Opinions that matters is what God saids.Men and women who want to
exsperience life beyond this short life at Best. Should honor what
God saids. In Romans I we see that people who remain in fornication,adultery etc are not going to Heaven. So read Acts 2:38 which saids Repent and be Baptized and then you can receive the
Holy Spirit to give you advice that Pleases you and God.

Aug 31, 2008 - 11:05 am 64. The Social Issues are not the same. Roger L. Simon… « The Tizona Group:

[...] Pajamas Media/Roger L. Simon Posted in Family, Life. [...]

Aug 31, 2008 - 11:21 am 65. RebeccaH:

I can agree with everything you said in this post, particularly about abortion. It shouldn’t be an easy choice, but it shouldn’t be a back-alley choice either. Not everyone is as strong as Sarah Palin, or has her social and family network of supporters.

Aug 31, 2008 - 11:50 am 66. Bullfrog:

I think these issues get “lumped” because they are both very significant challenges to the morality that this country was built on. In a more indirect way, the are both a challenge to the institution of marriage. Marriage over time has become more sexualized; and what I mean by that is it has become more about sex than procreation. In a big way, the sexual and feminist movements of the 60’s played a big part in this. The sexualization of marriage had to happen in order for homosexual marriage to seem become more acceptable, because if marriage is about 2 people having children (not 3, as in the example given by the author), redefining marriage would be seen for what it is: despicable and dangerous to our society.

Aug 31, 2008 - 12:43 pm 67. Palin: Bad Mother, Bad Woman | The Anchoress:

[...] SDA: Scratch Alan Colmes Brutally Honest: Palin’s husband is no metrosexual Roger L. Simon: Palin, Abortion and Gay Marriage. John Allen on the religion angle LATimes: Palin with Moose PETA will [...]

Aug 31, 2008 - 12:58 pm 68. BethJ:

Congratulations on your new family additions.

For the most part, I think government should stay out of the lives of the citiznes as much as possible. I believe in individual rights, not special group rights.

I support gay civil unions for gays and civil rights for all human beings, including the gay ones. However, I don’t support special rights. They can enter into contractual arrangements with each other for everything they need to achieve as a couple. However, the definition of marriage — as being between one man and one woman — has stood the test of time and should not be deluded or changed based on this or that special interest group. The institution of marriage is too important in our society in order to change it or to enact a special exception for homosexuals, or bigamists or any other untraditional group.

Additionally, people make the CHOICE to engage in unsafe sex resulting in pregnancy.

It is the mother who has CHOSEN to take the risk and acccept the consequences that her actions could result in the creation of a human life. That is where her pro-choice rights end and the civil rights of the fetus begin. It is the government’s obligation then, to step in to protect the most innocent among us — the unborn.

If the mother doesn’t want the government intrusion in her life, she should choose to practice safe sex and be responsible. She should CHOOSE wisely.

I think abortions should be made illegal except for in the cases of rape, incest or a serious health risk to the mother. I don’t think criminal charges against the mother would be appropriate, but heavy and steep fines should be imposed against doctors carrying out these illegal procedures. Hopefully, that will act as a deterrent over time.

Instead of being pro-life or pro-death (which is what it is), more emphasis has to be made on safe sex and the preferable option of adoption.

Aug 31, 2008 - 3:04 pm 69. BethJ:

Hello Michael Smith…. heard of birth control? Every woman can enjoy pregnancy-free sex as much as any man by taking the responsibility upfront to protect oneself from an unwanted pregancy. Don’t want an unwanted fetus to use your womb? Then be responsible. Take birth control pills, get an IUD, use a sponge, a patch, a condom. There are a myriad of ways to practice safe sex and avoid unwanted pregnancies. Your arguments are assuming everyone has been raped against their will and had no choice in allowing an embryo to be fertilized within in them. CHOOSE WISELY FROM THE START.

If an unwanted pregnancy occurs adoption is always a preferable option to ending the life of another human being.

Aug 31, 2008 - 3:16 pm 70. ic:

Constitution first, you must love Palin who sued the Federal govt. for infringing on Alaska’s rights to its natural resources, she also sued the Federal govt. for putting grizzlies (or polar bears?) in the protection list.

Aug 31, 2008 - 4:46 pm 71. Mike_K:

The lunatic left is now carrying a story that it is not her baby. They are beneath contempt. Even if their version is true, what does it matter ? The rage and hate on the left is simply amazing.

Aug 31, 2008 - 5:01 pm 72. Suzy:

Thank for your post. I agree that they are completely different issues. I am 100% Pro-Life and 100% Pro-Gay Marriage. What the media don’t seem to understand is that most women under the age of 40 are pro-life. All of my liberal girlfriends are anti-abortion. I think this is because many of us heard our children’s heart beat 6 weeks after conception and saw numerous ultrasounds of them before 12 weeks and they clearly resembled a human being and not a blob of flesh. Many pro-choice friends turned pro-life after that ultrasound. At the same time, many of us have gay and lesbian friends, co-workers and family members and cannot find a legitimate reason to deny them the same basic rights we have to marry.

Aug 31, 2008 - 5:18 pm 73. FlyOver:

Speaking as an unwanted child, I often think that no one is truly thinking of the child when they say they are “pro-life.” At least they are not thinking of the quality of life. I had 4 older siblings who told me as soon as I was old enough to understand that I was an “accident,” wasn’t wanted, etc. Upon questioning, my parents never denied this though later, in my teens, my mom would always say, “we enjoyed you more than all the rest.” Our family was very poor, my father was a binge drinker who often took his paycheck and blew it on booze and gambling. There were few resources to go around. One sibling was teased about his “old” mother getting pregnant. I can’t remember when I didn’t feel guilty for my existence. I guess what I’m trying to say is that “life” is not automatically “pro.” There can definitely be a “con” side to it. Every child, I feel, deserves to feel that they were chosen. Otherwise, they can be doomed to feelings of low self-worth. If a family cannot support another child, it is a bad situation all around. Please, DON’T say that my mother should have refrained from having sex with my father. She did use birth control and still got pregnant. The only way you can be sure you won’t have child is if you abstain and try telling people not to have sex except for pro-creation. Good luck with that, LOL. Personally, I believe the potential for live begins at conception but until the embryo is actually capable of awareness of the world it doesn’t have a soul,imo. In a nutshell, I think Obama got it wrong when he said he didn’t want to punish a young woman with a child, I think we shouldn’t punish a child with a parent that is unable to love it.

Aug 31, 2008 - 5:20 pm 74. Mike:

Sexual orientation is not elective? Perhaps; perhaps not. But as far as I know no reproducible study has shown it to be genetic, either. The only common denominator, and not even for all, seems to be a screwed up childhood. To say there is scientific proof that all homosexual behavior is unavoidable is simply false. I think I’ll pass on Roger Simon opinions from here on out if you don’t even know the basics and yet wave the banner of “scientific”

Aug 31, 2008 - 5:29 pm 75. CFB:

Sorry, Roger. Can’t go along with the gay marriage thing.

There’s a famous sex columnist who “married” his lover in California. At the time, he said his “marriage” vows did not include sharing assets or sexual fidelity.

In what sense is that a marriage? Shouldn’t a commitment that doesn’t include fidelity and community property be called something other than “marriage”? And can’t we keep marriage for people who want to be, well, married in the traditional sense?

Gays want to be able to get “married” because they think it’s proof that they are finally equal to, or as good as, everyone else. They don’t want to be married because they want the responsibilities of marriage. In the meantime, allowing people who have absolutely no intention of honoring the traditional pillars of marriage will destroy the institution of marriage.

Aug 31, 2008 - 5:30 pm 76. Occam's Beard:

Sexual orientation is not elective.</blockquote

That argument doesn’t wash. The urges of the Boston Strangler, Ed Gein, Jeffrey Dahmer, and John Wayne Gacy weren’t elective either, but that doesn’t mean that they had a right to satisfy them.

The fact that one sincerely feels a given compulsion does not of itself validate the decision to act upon it.

Aug 31, 2008 - 5:30 pm 77. Ben:

Roger,

Sorry, but the overwhelming evidence now points to the conclusion that very, very few — if any — people are “born gay.” Yes, some people are born with certain tendencies in that direction, just as some people have a predilection toward alcoholism. But environmental factors — primarily the relationship with the parents and childhood or adolescent sexual abuse — are what cause some people with abnormal sexual tendencies to actually become gay.

Sorry to hear about your son — I didn’t know he was gay. I don’t know what happened to him to make him turn out that way, but simply accepting his deviant behavior isn’t healthy for any of you.

Aug 31, 2008 - 5:37 pm 78. Charlie (Colorado):

In what sense is that a marriage?

In pretty much the same sense as lots of het couples I know.

Aug 31, 2008 - 5:38 pm 79. livermoron:

Lucky for you that the gay maariage issue is easy. I do not find it so for me personally. I believe that civil unions are ‘good enough’ as they provide important legal protections. Marriage is a societal construct meant to assure that there would be a nurturing support structure for children in the form of a family unit. Given biology and human nature it doesn’t always work out that way, but one must admit that is intent. By giving higher societal status, or placing some value to men and women who marry, there is a subtle pressure to have and raise children. I think we need all the pressure we can get these days.
I would entertain the thought of calling civil unions where children are adopted a ‘marriage’ such as in the case with your son and his partner. I would be a hypocrit not to I suppose.

Aug 31, 2008 - 5:39 pm 80. Occam's Beard:

The argument that sexual orientation is not elective doesn’t wash. The propriety of such urges is the issue, not their origin.

The Boston Strangler, Ed Gein, Jeffrey Dahmer, and John Wayne Gacy doubtless didn’t elect their sexual proclivities either, but that doesn’t mean they should be encourage – or even allowed – to act upon them.

Aug 31, 2008 - 5:40 pm 81. Bill:

One thing that troubles me about the abortion debate is when pro-abortion people say they want it “legal and rare.”

Why? Why rare? If what they contend is true in that a fetus is not a human being and merely tissue inside of a woman’s body, then why would they care if abortion is rare? No one thinks cutting toe nails should be rare. No one thinks liposuction should be rare. No thoughts of face lifts being rare.

I find it difficult to understand how anyone can deny that human life begins at conception. It clearly does. What the argument should therefore be is when human rights begin. I believe human rights also begin at conception. The pro-abortion crowd believe human rights do not begin until birth.

Perhaps pro-abortion advocates refuse to admit even the possibility that human life begins at conception because they believe it would further erode Roe v Wade. I don’t profess to be an expert of the legal arguments.

One thing I do know, however, is that I find it impossible to respect their viewpoint when they cannot be intellectually honest about it. They KNOW human life begins at conception. They lie to themselves and the rest of us to be able to live with the results of their decisions.

In regards to gay marriage, I have a step brother and step sister who were adopted separately who both went to live with their mother after the divorce. Her lifestyle was such that both were exposed to the gay lifestyle on a regular basis, and both turned out to be gay. Now, the statistical odds of two randomly adopted children both being gay have got to be fairly high, so I have a lot of doubts about homosexuality being total genetic.

That’s really here nor there, however. What someone does in the privacy of their own bedrooms with another consenting adult is their business. If they want a civil union, terrific. Marriage, however is defined as between a man and a woman. If they don’t like “civil union”, or “domestic partnership”, then make up another word. Our society is good at making up new terms. Leave “marriage” alone and invent a new term for a new type of union.

I often feel that many homosexuals don’t WANT a new term or even civil unions. They demand our acceptance of their relationships, and they want the term “marriage” to jam such an acceptance down our throats. That’s where they run into a lot of opposition they wouldn’t normally get, I think.

Anyway, great blog, and thank you for allowing me to post my opinions here.

Aug 31, 2008 - 5:45 pm 82. ZEITGEIST:

[...] ROGER SIMON: The social issues are not the same. [...]

Aug 31, 2008 - 5:46 pm 83. C Smith:

Interesting thoughts, Mr. Simon.
I can only view other peoples’ behavior through the Bill of Rights.
The fact that some may make choices I would not runs the gamut from fashion to reading to, yes, sexuality.
However, the relevant questions are whether they are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, not whether or not their private behavior is to my taste.
There is a crossover point where the symbol “marriage” comes into play. It has a specific meaning to me, and I am simply incapable of subscribing to the more progressive definitions. Tolerance is going to have to extend in both directions on this one.
There is another crossover point where children come into play. Simply put, if the arrangement isn’t at least hypothetically capable of reproducing, then common sense would seem to argue against it. I’m strongly opposed to any minors being brought into the situation.
As for abortion, I mentally think it more akin to gun control: so many of the arguments are focused on symptomatic points, and evade the primary questions of individual responsibility. Spraying bullets, spraying genetic material: where is the focus on maturely considering consequences beforehand?
Focusing on a clear model of what it means to be alive can burn off much of the societal fog on all of these issues.

Aug 31, 2008 - 5:46 pm 84. Roger_Z:

Yes, a fetus is obviously some kind of living being, but the question is: exactly what kind? And the only answer one can arrive at through rational (not religious) means is: it is _potential_ human life, and therefore has no more claim to the life or inconvenience of the mother on which it depends for survival than does any other clump of cells on or in the mother’s body.

If it were _actual_ human life, then any number of behaviors could reasonably be off limits to the mother – e.g., smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, playing rough sports – since these would put the life of this “person” in danger, and no other person would have the right to do that without permission (presumably from other interested parties or the state, as is the case when parents of real human children endanger their lives or well-being). Indeed, there could be grounds for legal action if it were determined – after a spontaneous abortion – that the mother should have avoided certain activities because she _ought_ to have know about a pregnancy of which she was actually ignorant, just as there is such grounds in certain negligent homicide cases.

This equivocation between potential and actual human life can be shown to lead to many more absurd and contradictory outcomes, many of which would make every pregnant woman essentially a ward of the state, whose every decision would need to be vetted by the legal system.

Yet, it is this equivocation which must ultimately be made by those that seek legal restrictions on abortions, and this equivocation can only rest on mystical/religious grounds.

Oh yes, I believe that, in some cases, abortion is immoral, just as is true with certain forms of drug use, or interpersonal behavior, or political activism (for example). Immorality as such, however, should not be illegal (And trust me, you will not provoke a followup post by arguing against _that_ position).

Aug 31, 2008 - 5:47 pm 85. George:

“sexual orientation is not elective”

Since when? I remember gay rights activists telling everyone who would listen that orientation was a “lifestyle choice”. This was back in the 60’s and 70’s. Today the story is “We are born this way.” Unh huh.

The straight community has been lied to, either back then or today. Gays must come clean and speak truthfully to their fellow citizens. Only then can we talk intelligently about the social issues that affect everyone.

Aug 31, 2008 - 5:52 pm 86. mockmook:

My post will seem so cliche because these debates just goes in endless circles, but it needs to be said:

Allow 2 men to “marry” each other, then

Allow 3 men to “marry” each other, then

Allow 4 men to “marry” each other, then

Allow XXXX to “marry” XXXX

Yes, the tired slippery slope argument, but it’s relevant in this case. We already have the poly-love movements.

If the word “marriage” is to retain any meaning, it must be restricted to one man and one woman.

You can still have your poly-compacts, just don’t legally term them marriage.

Aug 31, 2008 - 5:57 pm 87. cass:

Anyone who condemns abortion on the basis of the “sacredness of life” should also be against the death penalty, especially since we all know there is are a great many innocent people who die before they could be exonerated. Tell me how you reconcile those two things.

And another complication: taking away the right to abortion for victims of incest or rape. I truly think that only the victims have a right to decide this, because men and women who have never been through the experience have no idea of what it’s like. I am still tortured, 33 years later, by the memory of what happened to me, and the idea of being forced to bear a child as a result of it seems incredibly horrendous.

Aug 31, 2008 - 6:03 pm 88. Kirk:

Why must we acknowledge that?

Charlie (Colorado)wrote…
“”"Because we’re not dopes?”"”

If someone makes an unfounded assertion without a footnote or reference, it’s reasonable to ask “Who’s rear end did you pull that out of?”

Example…
All leftists are traitors, cowards and mentally unstable.

I would consider that statement consistant with observed facts. But I would not offer it in a written article meant to prove a point without some information backing it up. Roger Simon penned a weak piece that seemed more like an “alternative universe baby announcement” with a side of “whoa, my opinion means killing a live human..uncool!”. He throws out straw man arguments as given fact, and I picked ONE of those and said ‘prove it.’
I cannot explain reasonable disagreement to you better than that Charlie.

Aug 31, 2008 - 6:06 pm 89. JeanE:

Michael Smith,

You wrote “Furthermore, denying a woman the right to abort a pregnancy denies her a right available to every man: the right to enjoy sex without worrying about the risk of pregnancy. The law cannot function to deny to one sex a right available to the other.”

Perhaps you should consider that neither men nor women should be free to enjoy any activity without taking responsibility for the consequences of their choices. My kids aren’t allowed to enjoy playing with fire free from worrying about the risk of burning the house down. Nor is my son allowed to enjoy driving free from worrying about hitting pedestrians crossing the road. Why should any adult who chooses to engage in sexual intercourse expect to avoid responsibility for the child which may be conceived? The law need not ignore the baby’s right to life, but can instead focus on the father’s responsiblity to care for the child.

BTW, the law can’t change the fact that women have to deal with menstruation and men don’t, or the fact that men may have prostate problems and women don’t. Some inequalities you just have to accept and deal with.

Aug 31, 2008 - 6:06 pm 90. Canadian Neighbour:

Another name for marriage is “holy matrimony”. “Holy” means “sacred” in other words “sanctified.” Sanctified by Whom? By God. “Matrinony” is the state of motherhood. God has decreed that the only sanctified or divinely acceptable method of conceiving and giving birth to children is within the bonds of holy matrimony between a man and a woman, that is a husband and a wife.

Ant other type of sexual union, whether heterosexual or homosexual is not not considered to be holy matrimony. So you can call it anything else you want but it is not a divinely sanctioned union. Now, this may mean little or nothing to those who do not take the word of God seriously. But we have a Judeo-Christion tradition going back over three thousand years that takes these concepts seriously.

You want to accept same sex unions? Fine. You want to allow these same sex unions to have economic benefits? Fine. But please, in the name of God, don’t call these unions “marriage” Is that asking too much? Why do same sex unions have to be legally and religiously sanctioned? Is nothing sacred any more?

Aug 31, 2008 - 6:14 pm 91. sagit:

Biologically life does not begin, life continues … the uniting cells are both as alive as the one that will divide with its new DNA configuration.

And so it is also with the awareness that expresses itself through this biological machinery.

Aug 31, 2008 - 6:15 pm 92. The Social Issues are not the same « Elcampeador’s Weblog:

[...] Roger L. Simon/Pajamas Media [...]

Aug 31, 2008 - 6:20 pm 93. Lem:

I just wish I didn’t have to wait for days to resume such a civil while disagreable discourse

Come Roger, you red about the wedding in cana?

Aug 31, 2008 - 6:22 pm 94. jason:

Not gonna touch the abortion issue…

On the marriage issue, however, I wonder if those who consider marriage a contract between the heterosexual couple and god, for procreational (and devotional, I suppose) purposes, would have a problem if an a-spiritual agnostic such as myself were to engage in a heterosexual marriage which didn’t include any acknowledgment of god. What if we didn’t even love each other, but married for economic (or whatever) purposes?

Why would my marriage not be just as illegitimate as a gay one? And even if it were to be, why does our secular (by design) government have any responsibility, not to mention any right, to legislatively contest it? Plus, I doubt if any Justice of the Peace is required to refer to the marriage as Holy Matrimony, and I doubt that the laws covering marriage use the term in their content.

It’s a fucking victimless crime, if anything, for christ’s sake!

I might find “bad-gay” gross, but I have no problem with them getting the legal benefits of marriage, as long as the the consequences of divorce are just as severe as in a heterosexual marriage. I certainly don’t give a damn about other people’s buggery, at least if it’s not taking place in front of me.

All that being said, I really wonder why they want to be recognized as married anyway. Why not embrace the status of a civil union with the same enthusiasm that other social conventions are often rejected by their contingent? If you’ve ever seen images of, or have been to, a gay rights parade, it seems that many of them go out of their way to act in a deliberately contrary fashion in regards to the majority of society. Why glom onto this one with such furor?

Aug 31, 2008 - 6:42 pm 95. DoDoGuRu:

“Also, as we all must acknowledge, if abortions become illegal, they will continue anyway and, once again, become more or less a privilege of the rich. Pretty repellent.”

This is one of the most bizarre lines of reasoning I’ve ever come across. Abortion’s not really my issue (I could take or leave it), but your line is absurd. How can something that is already morally abhorrent suddenly become worse because only degenerate rich people are able to do it? If it’s already repellent, how does it get worse by economically limiting its practice?

Aug 31, 2008 - 6:47 pm 96. Don:

“Pro-choice” seems disengenuous as a title for a position held by many who are utterly opposed to any protection at all for women against coercive abortion, particularly the wing of the Democratic Party that finds China’s one child policy and mandatory abortions admirable.

Aug 31, 2008 - 6:52 pm 97. jason:

DoDoGuRu:

What if the “already abhorrent” issue was murder, like, say – gunning people down in the streets for fun? Should I be able to buy a license for that just because I can afford one?

Repellent, indeed.

Really has nothing to do with the moral argument for or against the abortion issue, though. This has more to do with the social consequences of prohibition.

Aug 31, 2008 - 6:54 pm 98. Leo D:

So Roger, what you’re saying is you’ve ‘grown’ to believe life is precious because you have two grandchildren. Was it precious before you figured that out? You know, if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
When you’re in the final years of life will you by then figure out that abortion really is murder and have pangs of conscience for supporting the practice all those years when you were more casual about abortion?
It’s hard to hear people express that they believe a fetus is a human being, but then cavalierly say, it only has a right to exist if its mother wants it to. What sense does that make?
It becomes even more bizarre when a thug kills a fetus in a drive-by shooting as the mother enters an abortion clinic. Most would call the thug a murderer, but if the mother survives she’s just saved herself a few hundred bucks while the thug goes off to prison for life. That’s sick.

Aug 31, 2008 - 6:59 pm 99. Dave:

Roger,

The only way to accept abortion is to believe that life does NOT begin at conception. You have now said that you DO believe this. Therefore any ‘choice’ to kill the fetus is in fact the murder of a human being.

If you truly do hold the twin positions of believing a fetus is a human being and believing abortion is a ‘choice’, you are schizophrenic. The two positions are locked in eternal combat. They cannot be aligned.

Unless you want to assert that a pregnant young woman has the right to murder a human being but the rest of us do NOT.

Aug 31, 2008 - 7:11 pm 100. obladioblada:

For those who are pro-choice, the prime directive is the protection of self-determination for women.

For those who are pro-life, the prime directive is the protection of human life.

Try as one might, there is no reconciling the two. I myself fall on the side of life.

Aug 31, 2008 - 7:14 pm 101. Greg:

As far as gay marriage, I think two adults should be able to live as they please and contract anything they wish. I just cringe at calling those contracts between members of the same sex “marriage”. It is semantics, but I am too traditional to avoid those semantics.

Of course, life begins at conception. I agree that government should not be involved but if it is, it must be at the state level. There is nothing in the Constitution without convoluted stretches to support abortion.

Aug 31, 2008 - 7:15 pm 102. Craig:

Like you I agree life begins at conception yet I am still for abortion up until the fetus can become viable; for many complicated reasons. But I don’t understand the argument about same sex marriage. It’s really about financial benefits, isn’t it? I can accept that two (3,4 men, a man and a dog) people of the same sex can love each other. They can call it marriage if they want. Why must they force me to call it marriage. Why does the government have to get involved. The government should let them do whatever they want, within reason. Perhaps if we gave marriage benefits to hockey team players we’d have people demanding that they be allowed to form hockey teams even if they couldn’t skate. And what about polygamy. Aren’t we on the slippery slope here? Can you deny that 3 people can be in a loving union? The only reason the government should be involved is because of children. Maybe it’d be better to just do away with legal marriage.

Aug 31, 2008 - 7:18 pm 103. BMoon:

Au contraire, the two topics – gay marriage and abortion – are intimately linked. These are both common sense, ie. conservative issues of the very basic sort. Obviously, an unborn child is alive and human and should be protected from the scalpels, saline solutions, and suction tubes of doctors who renounce the Hippocratic Oath, and unfathomably inhumane mothers who do not want to be inconvenienced by the burden of another human being in her life. (Maybe they read too much Sartre – “Hell is other people?”) What is more basic about being conservative than wanting to protect and celebrate human life?

Gay “marriage” is almost as fundamental issue for a conservative. Supposedly, we conservatives, well, want to conserve stuff -mostly good stuff, really good stuff that seems to have worked for several millenia. On that list is what is known as a family. (It does seem really strange to have to explain this but that is the upside down times we live in, I suppose.) A family, for millenia, consisted of a father and mother, and kids, the basic building block of healthy society and a nation. Marriage, before the truth-warpers got a hold of it in elite universities and through leftist-elite political hegemony and massive media propaganda, was intended to encourage that.

Along with thousands and thousands of other ex-gays, I can testify quite certainly that the “born gay” line is a hoax and lie as big as the one about blacks being born inferior. It simply ain’t so, and I have a 25-year marriage and five kids to show that individuals are in charge of their own identities and lives (another conservative value.) The correct term for it is “sexual identity confusion” or “wounded masculinity” or femininity. But that is how huge errors with huge consequences happen – through huge lies. Goebbells knew something about that. What could be more basic and conservative than wanting to preserve the basic identities of men and women, their roles as parents, and the need for a father AND a mother? Your son, with the best of intentions, I’m sure, is robbing those two kids of something every child should have – a mother. Mothers…good stuff. They are not optional accesories.

Roger, I know you are new at this conservative stuff, but you really need to get away from whatever they put in the water in California.

Aug 31, 2008 - 7:21 pm 104. Dave:

Roger,

“Marriage” is such a dowdy, frumpy, yesterday kind of term, isn’t it? It should be broadened, widened, made useful to more people, because of love and goodness….

Come to think of it, why do we restrict ourselves to only using the word ‘male’ for humans born with penises and testicles? That’s a bit bio-prejudiced, isn’t it? Why can’t someone with breasts and a vagina be called a man? It’s only a word, and whatever people are comfortable and happy with is what we should do, right?

And isn’t it sexist of us that only women get to be called ‘pregnant’? Such a joyous state, pregnancy, and so narrowminded of us to restrict the enjoyment of that joy to only the females among us. I vote we start calling men pregnant if they want, just to make them happy. It’s only a word, right? How does it hurt us if someone outside the traditional definition wants to use the word to be happy?

I’m for love, happiness, joy and goodness, so I propose that any word be used to mean anything at all as long as it makes people happy.

(for liberals reading here, the preceding was ironic humor intended to make Roger Simon rethink his position.)

Aug 31, 2008 - 7:23 pm 105. Promoguy:

Dave, actually what you might call ironic humor suggests that you do not live in the state of California. We have something in Cal called gender identification. Use the bathroom you feel gender attracted to.

http://www.transgenderlaw.org/resources/tlcschools.htm

Aug 31, 2008 - 7:33 pm 106. Amy:

I only want to say I take exception to the commenter who said most “pro-life” people wouldn’t keep a baby with down’s syndrome. That’s an assumption that we are only pro-life for other people not ourselves. I was a pregnant 18 year old, and abortion never crossed my mind. I have a son who has a genetic disorder and abortion never crossed my mind. I believe most pro-life people would feel the same way. I absolutely despise when people think they know other people’s minds.

Aug 31, 2008 - 8:00 pm 107. DoctorOfLove:

Here’s a question for the folks that claim to believe abortion is murder that I never seem to get a direct answer about (evasion, obfuscation, obamafuscation, no direct answers) (and I’ll concede I’m a lawyer, so there’s a bit of legalism about it):

If abortion is murder,

then it is premeditated, in the way that murder by poison is – no heat of the moment – no self defense – lots of planning – so that makes mom a first degree murderer, and I assume, therefore, the abortion is murder folks are in favor of either life sentences for abortion or for the more old-testament inclined, death…. (personally, I’m a fan of the death alternative, although picture it – Charles Manson lives and your average pregnant teenager gets fried)

If abortion is murder,

then doctors and nurses who perform abortions are serial murderers, for whom death is the only appropriate sentence…

Right? Because if the foregoing is not right, then you don’t actually believe abortion is murder (and I don’t think any but a tiny wacko fringe actually do). DUI, maybe securities fraud, but not really murdery murder.

Since the entire debate over abortion is in fact a debate over the role of the secular government, the police, the prosecutors, the judges, the juries, the prison systems, my freakin taxes, in the abortion issue, my question is, my anti-abortion friends, is abortion really really murder? That I have to pay for? Really? You’re really serious? And you think a majority of your fellow citizens want to fry women and doctors and nurses over abortion?

Oh, and by the way, why is the first resort of the religiously pissed off to impose the secular government’s system of violence on us all? What happened to the separation of church and state?

Come on, someone – anyone – abortion is really murder? Securlar lethal injection style murder, or DUI style 28 days in rehab style murder? Fess up.

Aug 31, 2008 - 8:08 pm 108. upetrovska:

In addition to the point you mention, I note that the Supreme Court is likely to become a greater issue in this election. Many with a pro-choice position are nevertheless troubled that abortion rights were made up out of whole cloth by an activist court, rather than hard-fought for and secured by the actions of voters in a democratic process. The politicization of the Court must end, and to do that, its role as a place of last resort for those who can’t win the majority in elections has to be reversed.

Aug 31, 2008 - 8:27 pm 109. MontyH:

>A family, for millenia, consisted of a father and mother, and kids, the basic building block of healthy society and a nation.<

Do you have any knowledge of history, BMoon? That’s called a nuclear family and it’s a pretty recent development in the history of mankind. Nothing wrong with it at all. I have one myself. But it’s not the only way or the best way. It’s a socio-economic structure, not feasible or practical in many equally healthy societies.
Also, neuroscience is now demonstrating that sexual identity is formed in utero based on various hormonal surges in the mother which bathe the fetus in differing cocktails of hormones. The fact that you claim to be an “ex-gay” is irrelevant. Good for you if you and your family are happy. My wife is an ex-brunette.

Aug 31, 2008 - 8:37 pm 110. goy:

Roger, thank you.

Your account brought ’sympathy’ tears to my eyes when it resurrected in graphic detail the memory of cutting the umbilical cord at my daughter’s birth, the sound (!) of her first quiet, desperate gasp for air and the infinite wonder in the pure, perfect, wide-open eyes that stared up at me when I held her and sang to her for the first time.

I’ve become convinced that what haunts and troubles us about the abortion question – what makes it the hair-trigger issue that it is – is That Terrible Not-knowing.

Rigid as they are when some pro-choice zealots scream – IT’S JUST A ZYGOTE!!!! – (and yes, I have personally heard them scream) it’s become crystal clear to me what elicits that scream.

It’s The Not Knowing: whether it’s “just a procedure”, or murder. Doctors and scientists may provide their viewpoint, based on what will someday be judged an infantile level of scientific knowledge. But the truth is – we don’t, can’t know.

It’s a truly profound and terrible choice I’m eternally grateful that, as a male, I have never had to make.

Aug 31, 2008 - 8:53 pm 111. devilsadvocate:

For the folks who believe that life begins at the moment of conception and should be protected….what of brain-dead organ donors? Should organ donation be allowed? When is a human no longer a human? Is it measured by brain function and if so should that same standard be held in determining when abortions should be allowed?

Aug 31, 2008 - 8:56 pm 112. Ben:

The politicization of the Court is just a byproduct of its activism. When judges make law by fiat, in effect becoming philosopher kings, it is natural that the political leanings of potential justices would become of huge interest to everyone. The Supreme Court has become an uber-legislature — it makes laws and, except through the amendment process, can not be overruled.

Aug 31, 2008 - 8:57 pm 113. Neshobanakni:

My aunt passed away a few weeks ago. Ruthie was “retarded” (downs syndrome) and we loved her. She was a babysitter for her many nieces and nephews (I’m the oldest). She had a better grasp of basic math, especially multiplication, than most “normal” folks. Her seventy years were not “wasted,” were not “wrong,” and, most importantly, were not “inconvenient.”

Killing people who annoy or inconvenience you makes you not just a fascist, or a Nazi, or a Communist, but a murdering asshole as well.

Ruthie lives on our hearts. I only hope that other folks will be touched by those whom are “differently abled.”

Tom on the rez.

Aug 31, 2008 - 9:03 pm 114. Dark Helmet:

Marrige is between a man and a woman.

Homosexuality is unnatural immoral.

No gay couple should ever be allowed to raise children.

Aug 31, 2008 - 9:04 pm 115. Lili von Shtupp:

First of all, congratulations on the new little granddaughters! (I am hoping for your son’s and his partner’s sake that they cut their daddies some slack and are good sleepers.)

Now….on to marriage….I don’t see why we don’t let the gays and lesbians have a crack at it. Heteros haven’t done very well with the institution, have they? We can blather on all we want about its sanctity, but we still get divorced at an appalling rate, have adulterous affairs, and violate the marriage bond in countless other ways that show no respect at all for it. Then, we get remarried, pull the same crap on the new partner, lather, rinse, repeat. Hell, we can do it five, six, seven times if we want, and some of us do.

If it was only about children, or the possibility thereof in the future, the State of Nevada would have had me get checked out for that in order to get a marriage license, right? They didn’t. No state does. Have a vasectomy? You can get a marriage license, no problem. They’ll issue a license to two 80 year olds if they want one. (I think we can pretty much all agree that it would be a freakin’ miracle if a bouncing bundle of joy happened as a result of that union, yes?)

Sorry, it has nothing to do with religion either. Atheists get married all the time. You can be married by all kinds of government officials, none of which have any religious authority. Try again!

Besides, it warms this cynical straight married lady’s heart that gays want to find a partner for life, and have it declared publicly and legally, while some of my idiot acquaintances have had children by different partners (it’s a rarity if these children have a full-blooded sibling, mind you) think that getting married is “too much of a commitment”.

If/when your son and his partner are ever able to cement their bond legally, I wish them all the happiness me and my husband have had over the past four years, Roger.

Aug 31, 2008 - 9:06 pm 116. Joe:

Roger,

Nice piece, and congratulations on the new additions to your family. I applaud Palin for having her child, despite society’s urge to purge all untouchables from the Earth. As someone with FSH muscular dystrophy, I count myself very fortunate to have parents who loved me and didn’t see anything “wrong” with me. They inspired me to pursue college and I begin grad school on Sept. 2nd. I am constantly bombarded with propaganda that I would effectively be better off dead.

“I would rather die than face what you face; I don’t know how you deal with it,” is a common remark I receive from new acquaintances. I’m not saying it’s all roses, it is not, but everyday I am thankful for life. I feel my life–my worth as a human being–is just as valuable as the next guy. So yes, I am pro-life. After all, the “right to life” is one of the founding tenets of our country.

Aug 31, 2008 - 9:20 pm 117. Promoguy:

To misquote Dennis Prager on marriage between male and female. Maybe it just about a standard that’s been around for a few thousand years.

I am in favor of gay unions. If gays feel like they need the rite of marriage, maybe they can come up with another term. I’m good with that.

Aug 31, 2008 - 9:23 pm 118. Alice AN:

Roger Congratulations on your grandkids – your son is blessed to have you as a father.

Honestly, it’s refreshing to read conservatives who make sense, even when we might not agree. The fact that so many of the comments differ from the knee jerk right fringe that passes for Republican these days lifts my spirits.

Personally, I am pro-life, I don’t think abortions are a good idea – but in the end every woman must make that determination for themselves – as opposed to being forced to give birth.

That said, abortion is mostly a form of contraception for people too stupid and irresponsible to use birth control, or too poor to afford it, and more recently, the kids being subjected to abstinence only sex education. This needs to stop!

I admire Sarah for following up her beliefs with action. Even my personal pro-life position does not mean I would do the same. Most chromosomal abnormalities gets aborted by the body spontaneously. Down’s is one of the few that isn’t and I can only hope never to have to make that choice.

I hope prop8 is defeated in california – and to that end I am going to work for that campaign. Christ denounced so much of the frivolity in the old testament, the focus on norms instead of compassion and empathy. Can anyone really doubt that Jesus would be first in line to combat the anti-gay hysteria? Not to mention that gays are such better human beings, full of resilience. If you believe that God does not give people larger crosses than they can bear, then you have to acknowledge that he has given them great ability to handle life with grace, optimism and strength (not applicable to closet cases or junkies).

Aug 31, 2008 - 9:26 pm 119. DoctorOfLove:

Once again, no pro-life folks on the subject of penalties. Where’s fire and brimstone when you need it.

Aug 31, 2008 - 9:31 pm 120. Canadian Neighbour:

Roger:
“Sexual orientation is not elective.”
Sorry to challenge this neat little bit of justification of yours, but there is absolutely no scientific basis in truth for this statement. Homosexuality is probably a state of arrested sexual development whose cause lies in the individual’s psyche. But today this idea is forbidden to be put forth publicly.

Let me remind you that up until the late 1960’s homosexuality was considered a psychiatric illness…a form of mental illness… a sexual perversion. How did it become a “normal” sexual variation? A group of radical homosexuals stormed the annual convention of the American Psychiatric Association in New York,surrounded the convention hall, and refused to let the psychiatrists in attendence leave until they removed homosexuality from the list of psychiatric illnesses. The psychiatrists in attendence, wanting to go home, meekly yielded to the radical activists demands, and removed homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses, and happily went on their way home.

All of a sudden, homosexuality henceforth became legitimate, and anyone who thought otherwise was labled a bigot and a homophobe. It no longer was a medical issue,it henceforth became a political and equal rights issue. I am a doctor old enough to know of many homosexuals who were cured of their, shall we say, “condition” by psychiatric treatment. But today, such cases are inadmissable, because of rampant liberalism and political correctness.

Sorry to rain on your parade, and I truly hope you enjoy your new granddaughters.

Aug 31, 2008 - 9:40 pm 121. bobby b:

“I think life begins when brain activity begins in the fetus, and I think the fetus should be protected after that point.”

– - -

As my father has pointed out to me, many of us would have remained at risk until well into our twenties were that the rule.

Aug 31, 2008 - 10:09 pm 122. Jim,MtnViewCA,USA:

I used to be completely pro-choice, but after having a kid and after seeing videos of children in the womb I agree with Roger.
Whether or not we ever ban abortion (and I want the decision made by the People, not be a judge or group of judges) we should face up to the fact that an innocent life is being ended.

Aug 31, 2008 - 10:36 pm 123. Ken:

Congratulations for stating the fundamental difference between homosexuality and abortion as issues. I’m more conservative than you are on homosexuality, and pro-life, but I respect you for not going down the “isn’t it wonderful that we can have something as sexy as an abortion” route. I didn’t much like the TV preachers using opposition to homosexuality as an easy route to cash, back in the ’80’s when it was still very unpopular, and I don’t like Planned Parenthood now saying, “Well, now that we’re sexy enough for homosexuality, we’re also sexy enough for abortion.”

But…

You have to admit that the hate-filled reaction throughout the Left toward Sarah Palin for exercising CHOICE and having a Downs’ Syndrome son tends to indicate that you’re in a minority on your side. These so-called people would, I am positive, murder Trig Palin, and probably rape him, if they had the chance.

Doesn’t the absolute evil of some on the pro-abortion side make you think twice about your position here?

Aug 31, 2008 - 11:27 pm 124. BMoon:

“Once again, no pro-life folks on the subject of penalties. Where’s fire and brimstone when you need it.”

Well, it is invariably like the Holocaust. How do you prosecute thousands upon thosands of the guilty, almost an entire nation? The Free nations just decided to prosecute the most heinous of mass murderers, and let the majority go off light.

“A woman who intentionally destroys a fetus is guilty of murder. And we do not even talk about the fine distinction as to its being completely formed or unformed.” Basil the Great, 360 A.D.

Aug 31, 2008 - 11:41 pm 125. BMoon:

“Do you have any knowledge of history, BMoon? That’s called a nuclear family and it’s a pretty recent development in the history of mankind.” (MontyH)

Oh cut the PC crappola. That idea is the true “recent developement” and quite a contrived one too. The Hebrews, China, India, the Greeks, the Roman, inumerable primitive native cultures have since time memorable based their culture on the nuclear family.

Aug 31, 2008 - 11:45 pm 126. SukieTawdry:

If life didn’t start at conception, it wouldn’t be necessary to prevent it from starting there.

Aug 31, 2008 - 11:51 pm 127. P. Ami:

First off, congratulations on the birth of your grandchildren. I hope they bring you all the happiness and pleasure that I saw my grandparents have in my generation and my parents getting from the children I and my siblings have produced. That said, I disagree in principle over gay marriage. I think homosexuals can and should have the right to be accepted in civil union while marriage should be reserved for the traditional coupling of man and woman. There are traditional reasons for this but they do not stand alone. Just because we have always done it this way is not an argument the works for every position but it lends richness to the positions that can stand on other grounds. One of those arguments are that the traditional family has been under assault for 100 years and the consequences of that assault has given rise to a grand confusion over personal responsibility and commitment. Gay marriage does not, unless one is wealthy, have the option of producing children, which creates bonds of inheritance and interpersonal commitment that would otherwise be superficial. A gay couple, through their union, does not contribute a lasting legacy to the family, the municipality or the nation. Their coupling is a personal choice with no grand social repercussions and should be allowed to play out on a personal, not societal, level.

As for abortion. The reason folks used to abort as often as they did back before Roe V Wade, is that there was a stigma attached to unwed motherhood. This stigma is practically non-existent today. If you want to argue that folk should be allowed to kill their children then I think there aught to be a more compelling reason to allow it then to say that, if made illegal only the rich will get away with it. Seems to me that saving the lives of the children in poor or middle-class families is a positive and perhaps eventually we will reclaim the moral fiber that would keep the rich from trying to get away with that act.

Sep 1, 2008 - 12:28 am 128. DARREN M HALL:

Rights are attributed to persons, not behaviors. Homosexuality is not a legitimate characteristic, it’s an emotional and mental mal-adaptation.
While so-called “sexual orientation” may not be an elective(compulsions rarely are) it is by no means biologically ordained.
I feel sorry for your “grandchildren”.

Sep 1, 2008 - 1:46 am 129. Chris:

I agree that marriage is fundamentally for the propagation and raising of children. Therefore I move that no sterile people should be allowed to marry.

You people are absurd.

No marriage should have legal recognition. Only civil unions should have legal recognition. If your church wants to call a civil union a “marriage” then more power to it.

Just remember that the Metropolitan Community Church will be calling their civil unions “marriage” too, and there is nothing under law you can do about that.

Sep 1, 2008 - 4:46 am 130. lorenzo aka erudito:

Many cultures, including many Amerindian cultures, had same-sex marriages. This social form was suppressed, often with great brutality, by European conquerors. To claim that same-sex marriage is some “new thing” is historical and anthropological nonsense.

The urge to have acknowledged same-sex relationships even within Western civilisation has a history. Montaigne, for example, refers to people being burnt alive for participating in same-sex marriage ceremonies in Roman in the late C16th. What we are coming out of is centuries of brutal monotheist social engineering which murderously denied the same-sex oriented any social place.

It is not “natural” to have no acknowledged place for same-sex oriented people and relationships, that was imposed by systematic violence.

And yes, abortion and same-sex marriage are very different issues.

Sep 1, 2008 - 5:40 am 131. obiterdictum:

See the pro-life Christopher Hitchens and Nat Hentoff. Secular humanists shouldn’t be in the business of sanctioning the destruction of innocent humans.

Sep 1, 2008 - 5:41 am 132. paul a'barge:

Can we get back to the argument about whether or not abortion is legal because it says so in the Constitution, please?

Just because there is no federal guarantee of a freedom to murder unborn babies in the Constitution does not mean that the legality could not be left up to the individual States.

That way, if one wanted to live in the abortuarium called California, one could have as many abortions as one wanted. And in Texas, we could have the right to make abortion against our laws.

Getting the government out of decisions sounds really great … almost Conservative Republican, nee Libertarian. Until you realize that short of as a necessity to save the life of the mother, you really are committing murder.

If you want to maintain that you’re consistent, then argue against all laws against murder, ok?

We’re waiting for that. Tick. Tock.

Sep 1, 2008 - 5:46 am 133. Nothere:

It is “Down Syndrome”.

Sep 1, 2008 - 6:51 am 134. chsw:

Whenever some door-knocking poll miscreant asks about gay marriage, I ask them why would gays want to be subject to NY’s divorce laws.

chsw

Sep 1, 2008 - 8:13 am 135. tanstaafl:

Still, I remain pro-choice because I would prefer the government not be involved in these highly personal decisions.

But, isn’t it precisely Roe v. Wade that brought “the government” in in a big way ?

(“feminists” were thrilled at the roe v. wade ruling (actually, a right to privacy ruling) but I always considered it weak to have government involved in any way)

Also, as we all must acknowledge, if abortions become illegal, they will continue anyway and, once again, become more or less a privilege of the rich. Pretty repellent.

Prior to roe v. wade (1973) numbers of abortions performed were nothing like the 45-50 million performed in the United States since then.

Roe v. Wade made abortion a much easier (and much more widely exercised) choice for “unwanted” pregnancy. In some cases I’m familiar with, serial abortion was actually a form of birth control.

Sep 1, 2008 - 8:33 am 136. Mike G:

This is on topic, though it may not seem so at first.

Remember Jeffrey Wells, the Hollywood blogger who called for a new blacklist? Now he’s banned all conservative comments from his site, in what even he admits is a “Stalinist purge.”

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2008/08/stalinist_purge.php

Not surprisingly, the upshot of it is that his site immediately became a cesspit of out-of-control rumormongering and sexist insults about Sarah Palin’s baby, family, and general stupidity/unfitness for office.

Sep 1, 2008 - 8:59 am 137. Ben:

Lili von Shtupp wrote: I don’t see why we don’t let the gays and lesbians have a crack at it. Heteros haven’t done very well with the institution, have they?

Translation: Marriage is already screwed up, so why not screw it up even more?

This is a tired line of argument. The people most opposed to same-sex marriage were also against no-fault divorce when it became law. The bad shape marriage is in right now is no reason to make it even worse.

If the gender of the marriage participants is not important, who is to say that the number of participants is the only immutable characteristic of the union? And indeed, the push for “polyamory” (group marriage) has already begun.

If marriage can mean anything, it means nothing. Which is exactly what many of the pushers of same-sex marriage want.

Sep 1, 2008 - 9:15 am 138. Ben:

lorenzo,

Your history is greatly flawed. The instances you point to are the historical outliers, not the norm during any point in time. Furthermore, such moral decay always occurred in the dark days just prior to a civilizational collapse. Once a society begins to openly accept homosexuality and homosexual unions, it has sunk into the abyss and its days are numbered.

Sep 1, 2008 - 9:19 am 139. m.a.:

No one is against homosexuals being in loving, committed relationships. Clearly, they already are. Most Americans are against having the legal definition of marriage changed; a definition that has remained unchanged throughout history. People who are against homosexual “marriage” are also happy to leave the decision up to individual states. Obama, on the other hand would repeal DOMA and force the acceptance of such “marriages” on an entire country. The lie concerning the overturning of Roe v Wade that the left pushes is equally absurd. Overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal; it would repeal an unconstitutional law made by ideologue judges and return the matter to the states where it belongs. Obama, of course would require that people who morally oppose abortion be forced to pay for it with their tax dollars. What is it about individual liberty and federalism that liberals hate so much?

Sep 1, 2008 - 9:20 am 140. Dave:

I have proposed earlier, in line with Roger’s contention that gays should be allowed ‘marriage’, that we allow anyone to use any word they want to mean anything they want, because after all we wouldn’t want to be word-prejudiced and stuck in outmoded traditional ways of understanding, and thus withhold happiness from certain people who can’t be happy with the traditional definitions of words.

Now I ask what is the meaning of happiness? And isn’t it unfair to unhappy people to call only happy people ‘happy’? I think ‘happiness’ ought to be used to describe the most miserable people among us, so that they have a chance to feel as good as those who actually feel good.

It’s only right and good and loving and kind, this destruction of the real meanings of all the words in our language. So get with the program, you hidebound traditionalists, and let the rest of the world feel good about themselves by using words that, in ancient times, did not apply to them.

Me, I’m off to my wedding. Gonna marry my BMW M3, sweet little car, athletic and nimble, gentle and easy on the driver, a perfect life companion for a guy like me.

Who says marriage has to be between two people? Probably the same narrowminded outmoded traditionalist who used to say it had to be between a man and a woman.

And after I marry my BMW I’m going to marry my five cats. We’ve lived together for years, and we’re ready for commitment.

Sep 1, 2008 - 9:34 am 141. Bryan:

Canadian Neighbour:

The earth was once thought to be flat. I guess that means it still is? Go back to thinking that microbes are a curse of the devil.

Sep 1, 2008 - 9:35 am 142. Dave:

And finally, might I point out that gay men and gay women have the exact same rights as every other person in this nation.

Any gay man is free to marry any woman who will have him, just like I am free to marry any woman who would have me.

But to say a man can ‘marry’ another man is like saying I can drink a Pizza or eat a diet Coke. It is not the appropriate term. It does not compute.

It’s like calling a chicken a frog, or calling Obama a moderate. It is an inaccurate description and does not work in context.

Sep 1, 2008 - 9:43 am 143. Murrhead:

If you think life begins conception, can you explain to me how deliberately ending such a life (premeditation?), is not murder? Your position makes no sense to me.

Sep 1, 2008 - 9:46 am 144. Bonnie_:

Kids need a mom and a dad, Roger, not two dads. Or two moms. Those “granddaughters” are going to miss out on the nurturing love of a mother. They are going to be raised in an unnatural household, while there are many loving couples with a mom and a dad who would love to adopt them and raise them in a normal environment.

Todd Beamer’s child was brought into the world without a dad — this, too, was unnatural and wrong. But his child was brought into the world without a father because of tragedy, not choice. So, too, all the other babies born after their fathers died on 9-11.

There are so many loving couples who want to adopt that giving these little girls to a couple of gay men is an abomination. They are sure to be loving, and kind — but there is no mom in that house, and that is not good for those girls.

Homosexuality is not a choice, I agree. But homosexuals are not parents, and they shouldn’t damage children by pretending they are.

Sep 1, 2008 - 9:50 am 145. Anita Hope:

“BIAMORY UNION” could be the legal contract used by Gay couples, thus not stepping on anyones toes so to speak. Life is so short and just what we are doing now is why the world as a whole can not get along. We continue to try and control according to our ideals, discounting the rights of others, a problem that will never end. Words hurt big time, think before you speak “write”, and remember ” Turn around is fair play”. These are
old saying’s that still speak truth.

Sep 1, 2008 - 10:18 am 146. schnargley:

The time has come. We are coming out of the closet too…We are here, maybe weird, and we are out! I am referring to the much maligned, abused, discriminated against people with a sexual identity called the egosexual. With terms like “wanker,” “jerk off” and “tosser,” or jokes about hair growing on hands and going blind we have suffered the hatred of religious right-wing bigots long enough! There are brand new scientific studies that irrefutably show we were born this way. Ever since I was small, I had these urges. I tried to repress them. I tried women when I was younger, under peer pressure and demands of society, and realized that it wasn’t for me. With the sexual liberation of te last few decades, I tried men, slept with about 100 of them till I realized I did not want to live that way. Too risky too. And then, in therapy one day, I realized that the reason I failed in all my other relationships, the reason I was so messed up, was that I was denying who I really am. I then I realized, like the song says, “The greatest love of all, Is easy to achieve learning to love yourself, it is the greatest love of all.” (Whitney Houston and the Egosexuals anthem.)

Ever since I have been in a loving, caring, committed relationship with myself, and we all await the day where society will grow up out of archaic, false concepts from dead religion, and accept us, give us our right to marry ourselves, have kids (like Ricky Martin, one of us, just did.)

Thank you for your compassion and tolerance.

Sep 1, 2008 - 10:18 am 147. tanstaafl:

But to say a man can ‘marry’ another man is like saying I can drink a Pizza or eat a diet Coke. It is not the appropriate term. It does not compute.

A gay man I know (who has been with the same partner for 20+ years) has no desire to “marry”. When I was young, growing up in a gay friendly “progressive” town in southern CA (guess which one ?), gay guys had no desire to be married to one another either.

Anyway, my friend and his partner have worked out legal arrangements to their mutual satisfaction, rights and protections of marriage being an argument often presented in favor of gay marriage.

The enormous emphasis on gays in the military under Bill Clinton was a huge distraction from the nation’s business.

Sometimes one can imagine that wanting to be in a “married” state and claim legitimacy that way (see Ellen de Generes and her young bride) is, mainly, an attention getter rather than an earnest desire to be “married”.

Maybe Ellen (age 50) wanted to tie down the gorgous wife, age 35. I like Ellen’s humor a lot, but she joked right after the ceremony…”now she has to cook and clean for me”.

(I have already married my 4 cats and used to be married to my Mazda Miata “more dependable and fun than any spouse”, but, unfortunately, after 10 years, the Miata and I got a divorce.)

Sep 1, 2008 - 10:27 am 148. Canadian Neighbour:

Re: same sex “marriages” I am reminded of the line from the play andmovie “Fiddler On The Roof”: “A fish and a bird may fall in love and wish to marry, but where will they build a home?”
It’s unnatural.

Sep 1, 2008 - 11:40 am 149. P. Ami:

I’m just curious why commentators focus on making the other side look absurd or derogate them. I disagree that same sex marriage is a social positive. Seeing that gay unions almost always fruitless (childwise), society has no reason to give it much notice. The individuals can do as they please but need not force society to recognize their union as they do the fertile unions. But why insult people who think society aught to. Its just a bad opinion.

Sep 1, 2008 - 11:50 am 150. Canadian Neighbour:

A Ami:
It’s much, much more than a “bad opinion”.

It’s a powerful political movement that wields a lot of political clout at election time. As a result, unprincipled politicians, indeed an entire National Political Party (guess which one) panders, endorses, and yields to Gay community’s life-style along with their straight sympathizers. Their influence is far out of proportion to their numbers. Furthermore they have strong influence in the entertainment industry, and influence public opinion through movies, TV shows, and music. Just think: when was the last time you can remember when a gay individual was presented in a negative way in film, play or novel?No, neither can I.

If you don’t endorse their “life-style”, you are immediately put on the defensive and personally attacked as a homophobe, a religious fanatic or worse. Just a bad opinion, indeed!

Sep 1, 2008 - 12:56 pm 151. MontyH:

If marriage is intended for procreation, then please explain to me why it’s okay for post menopausal women to get married, for sterile individuals to marry, for couples who intend to (and do) remain childless to get married? By allowing them to get married, you are already altering your traditional definition of marriage, the very one you invoke to deny gay marriage. I believe that’s called hypocrisy.

Sep 1, 2008 - 2:09 pm 152. Annabel:

>Just think: when was the last time you can remember when a gay individual was presented in a negative way in film, play or novel?No, neither can I.If you don’t endorse their “life-style”, you are immediately put on the defensive and personally attacked as a homophobe, a religious fanatic or worse. Just a bad opinion, indeed!<

When you call it a “life-style”, you are personally attacking them. I realize that’s not how you see it, but then again, you’re not them.

Furthermore, just as scientific advances which allow us to see and hear developing fetuses from the earliest embryonic stage, are turning the public tide more and more in the direction of pro-life, so too scientific advances which allow us to image the brain at the level of neurons and to learn the effects of various neurotransmitters on the developing brain, are teaching us about the biochemical nature of sexual orientation.

Homosexuality used to be considered by some a mental illness. And we used to institutionalize epileptics, or before that, perform exorcisms on them, or burn them at the stake. It’s called scientific progress. I hope it continues and you all should too.

Sep 1, 2008 - 2:31 pm 153. DavidN:

I have never understood the philosophy that marriage is merely for children. I am 49, have been married for 10 years. My wife is about 7 years older than I. When we got married, we discussed children, but it was pretty obvious the train had already left the station at that point. We’re happy, about to buy a new house etc. Apparently, however, we need children to make our marriage real, or something. My best friend is a year or two younger than me. His wife is just about my age. They’ve been married almost 20 years, don’t have children either, and don’t have any plans to. I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point. Marriage is for two people who are in love. Sometimes children result, but does anyone remember George Washington, for instance? Martha had children, from a previous marriage, but George and she remained childless. Guess they weren’t really married, either.

Sep 1, 2008 - 2:44 pm 154. Jay:

This is a beautiful, searching post, Roger. As someone whose mom miscarried before toughing out my Cerebral Palsy diagnosis, I thank you for this.

However, I couldn’t help getting flustered by this flash of certainty: “The pro-life people are certainly right about one thing – life does begin at the moment of conception (when else?).”

Really? Now, I am pro-choice not because I am some sort of misanthrope, but because I think casual sex is a good thing (I’d rather people had sex than released their pent-up energy in more violent ways.). Having written this, I don’t think people have sex and use contraception thinking, “Good God, I’d hate to have a kid.” It’s more along the lines of: “I just want to screw.”

All this is to say: if you argue that life begins at conception (and I don’t think it does), you give anti-abortion folks a big reason to outlaw the practice, and really, what’s next? A ban on condoms? The pill?

The consequences of widespread sexual repression in today’s America are too dangerous to contemplate.

Sep 1, 2008 - 3:20 pm 155. nodakboy:

Roger: I think you owe your readers – and, heck, the world! – a little better explanation on supporting abortion than that it’s a “personal” decision (how many decisions aren’t, including most decisions to commit murder?) and that people will do it anyway.
Come on.
Such arguments (well, they aren’t even really arguments, more like slogans) are literally sophomoric: they are at the level of most second-year college kids.. . which was a lot higher level in your day than now, so let’s use now as our reference point for this, eh?
If you believe it’s a human being, than it’s not putting too fine a point on it to describe abortion as slaughtering a very young human being, right?
Come on. Blog our brains out on why keeping such slaughters – a million a year or so – decriminalized is a good idea; is not a horror almost unimaginable if you try to, say, visualize it.

Sep 1, 2008 - 3:41 pm 156. Lili von Shtupp:

Uh, Ben….try to read what I wrote before you comment on it, ok?

For all the huffing and puffing about marriage that straights do, we are the greatest threat to it. Maybe you are perfectly fine with giving people unlimited chances to get it right, and to hell with the kids that they produce along the way. Me? Not so much.

If we were serious about it, we’d institute things like two marriage licenses per person, max, unless the marriage ended in death. We wouldn’t tolerate Elizabeth Taylor and her far less famous serial monogamists. We’d make it a bit more difficult to get the license than just showing up with the fee and the ability to fog a mirror.

Sky high divorce rates? Check. People unable to keep their hands off of their neighbors’ wives? Check. Morons more worried about getting on “Platinum Weddings” than finding out if they actually can stand each other? Check.

Instead, we get people running around terrified that some homo might want to marry another guy. We come up with “reasons” they can’t get married, like the fertility issue, that we don’t even think of demanding that straights prove to our satisfaction.

I think you’re just scared that they might take this whole thing seriously, and yes, treat it with respect. We straights sure as hell don’t.

Sep 1, 2008 - 4:33 pm 157. John:

The issue with “same-sex” marriage is the question of who gets to re-define marriage or any other significant institution and how? If any minority can re-define marriage via the courts, then other absolute minorities can (and will) re-define the redefinition ad infinitum.

How is this democratic? How is this “sane”? If this small minority gets to so re-define marriage to make themselves feel good, can I redefine the word “public” for my own purposes? If not, why not?

Secondly, abortion is about the intentional killing of the completely innocent. The opinion, feeling, mental or emotional state of ANYONE else does not in and of itself annul the right of life for that innocent human being precisely because OTHER people don’t give us rights in the first place. Mothers don’t endow their offspring with human rights anymore than the state does.

Sep 1, 2008 - 4:56 pm 158. real life guy:

Our government can tell an 18 year old female soldier in Iraq to kill an Iraqi. Before he dies unfortunately, he rapes her. She gets pregnant. If it were up to the GOP she couldnt have an abortion. She can kill the father of her child because we are at war, but not the child. Why not? Because it’s a fetus and needs to be protected? What if our soldier killed a pregnant female iraqi? Where is that fetus’ protection?
This is why people like Palin can not be allowed to run our government. Everything maybe simple in a town of 9000 eskimos, but out there in the real world, this hypocrisy and obvious doublespeak doesnt work. It’s easy to talk big about your morals and perceived character until the shit hits the fan. Then you will realize the lies you have learnt your whole life all of a sudden dont add up. George Bush thought he could just start a religious war in the middle east because everything he ever did back in Texas always worked out okay before. We dont need another dry drunk born again “I’ll just do what it says in the bible” idiot running this country anymore. It doesnt just work out okay. Headstrong people who can not compromise or negotiate because their values get in the way do not belong running the mightiest nation in the world. This isnt Alaska. Palin is a disaster waiting to happen.

Sep 1, 2008 - 5:08 pm 159. Bridget:

Re Ben’s comment to Roger: “Sorry to hear about your son — I didn’t know he was gay. I don’t know what happened to him to make him turn out that way, but simply accepting his deviant behavior isn’t healthy for any of you.”

That statement is beyond cruel. If you had an ounce of decency or humanity, you’d apologize to Roger.

Sep 1, 2008 - 5:16 pm 160. BMoon:

real life guy….

Great name for a satirist. Funny stuff!

Sep 1, 2008 - 5:45 pm 161. AST:

Great post, Roger. Maybe the proponents of gay marriage are motivated by the fear of gay partners getting pregnant and not having marriage or abortion as a way to deal with it, but I doubt it.

Sep 1, 2008 - 5:53 pm 162. BMoon:

Bridget, cut out the put-on self-righteous indignation act. if you knew anything about gays, you’d know that gays themselves often say things like, “Of course I was born this way. Why would anybody choose to be gay?” When I lead the gay “lifestyle’ I was most miserable, and without getting tedious with all the studies, evidence shows this is quite common. What the poster said could only be taken offensively if you accept the hoax that our sexual behavior is predetermined genetically. That is what is truly denigrating, for that belief, if accepted by somebody, takes away their freewill, robs a person of the dignity we all have as humans to choose our destiny, behavior and conduct. I have much more respect and believe it is much more dignified to say, “I am what I am and do what I do because, as a freewill agent, a human being, I choose to do it.” That is much more respectful to gays, than saying they are like animals who have to fulfill sexual urges.

Sep 1, 2008 - 6:07 pm 163. Canadian Neighbour:

The average person has been so subtley but thoroughly brain-washed by the homosexual propaganda industry that they no longer recognize the influence that homosexual culture has on them.

The terms “gay”, “gay pride”, “sexual preference”,”out of the closet”, have so infiltrated the English lexicon, that almost noboby stops to think what these and similar words actually mean.

The term “gay” came into use because it connotes a happy state. It became necessary because the word “homosexual” or “homo” instinctively produced a feeling of shame or embarrassment in those who were so inclined. Thus call it something positive and unthreatening like “gay” and the negative feelings disappear.

Then there is the expression “gay pride”. Why is there no equivalent expression “straight pride”? Because people who have normal, natural sexual drives realize that it is nothing to take pride in, just like there is no reason to take pride in your blue eyes or brown hair. Homosexuals however, have a need to deny the innate shame and low self esteem they experience because of their deviant sexual feelings and so attempt to overcompensate by going to the opposite extreme and express their “pride” in their deviancy.

In many large cities it has become the norm to hold annual gay pride days, gay pride weeks, and even gay pride parades in which the most juvenile forms of exhibitionism and nudity are on public view. Were straights to engage in the same kind of behaviours in public, they would be immediately arrested and charged with public mischief and indecent exposure. But the police force is instructed to turn a blind eye to this because it’s all normal, harmless good fun. Unless your young children witness this spectacle and begin to ask questions.

The term “sexual preference” is also interesting because it suggests choice rather than compulsion.

“Coming out(of the closet)” is another interesting expression. It of course suggests something that should be hidden, kept under wraps, or suppressed is from now on out in the open. One must obviously ask: Why was it necessary to be kept hidden in the first place? Could it be that the individual instinctively felt there was something shameful about their sexual inclinations that needed to be hidden? Coming out requires a tremendous amount of either courage, recklessness, or outside encouragement and prodding.

Why is the rate of alcholism, drug abuse, and suicide much higher in the gay community than in the straight community? The answer is obvious: Things are not so happy and gay in the gay community. But these sad facts must be kept from the public.

Yes, it’s true that some gay couples live in exemplary, happy, monogamous, long term relationships. But I submit they do not flaunt their relationship in public, lead quiet decent public lives, are not constantly “in your face” and are the exception to the rule.

Sep 1, 2008 - 6:31 pm 164. Canadian Neighbour:

Monty H: It’s the sexual act itself that is sanctified. Not the biological result-if any- that follows the act.

You must,of course realize that most acts of sexual intercourse between healthy fertile husbands and wifes do NOT result in conception. But the act itself within marriage is santified regardless of whether it results in conception or not. Get it? It’s as simple as that.

Sep 1, 2008 - 6:49 pm 165. Bridget:

Well, BMoon, let’s dissect Ben’s comment:

“Sorry to hear about your son — I didn’t know he was gay.”

He’s addressing this to Roger, a man who clearly loves his son and shared the proud news of his grandchildren. It’s insulting to respond with “sorry about that” — it doesn’t matter what you think about gays, it’s damn rude.

“I don’t know what happened to him to make him turn out that way,”

…here insinuating that Roger somehow jacked up his son’s upbringing, which is again totally out of line…

“…but simply accepting his deviant behavior isn’t healthy for any of you.”

…and this is just condescending and rude. You don’t have to agree with someone’s lifestyle, but good people treat each other with basic respect.

Sep 1, 2008 - 7:35 pm 166. tanstaafl:

In many large cities it has become the norm to hold annual gay pride days, gay pride weeks, and even gay pride parades in which the most juvenile forms of exhibitionism and nudity are on public view.

Have a look at photos from The ‘07 Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco

While you’re there, be sure and click on “explicit photos”.

Sep 1, 2008 - 7:55 pm 167. Ben:

Uh, Lili, maybe you should be the one to check on the whole reading comprehension thing.

Let me state my point again: As screwed up as marriage is, the people who today are most against same-sex marriage are the same ones who fought against (and still strongly disapprove of) the sorts of destructive behaviors you described. But just because things are already screwed up doesn’t mean that we should screw it up even more by unmooring the entire institution from its foundation. Gays can not uphold the values of marriage because the very idea of gays marrying is a perversion of the union.

Once you allow SSM and polyamory, marriage has ceased to exist as a viable institution.

Sep 1, 2008 - 9:16 pm 168. Ben:

Bridget,

Why should I apologize for stating the truth? The evidence for the role of life experiences in the development of homosexuals is overwhelming. Something clearly happened to this kid, and it’s a sad thing. By supporting his condition, it is you who are being cruel.

Sep 1, 2008 - 9:21 pm 169. Ben:

Bridget,

I just saw your response to BMoon, so will respond to it. You asserted that I somehow claimed “that Roger somehow jacked up his son’s upbringing.”

I did nothing of the sort. The parental relationship is certainly part of the equation, but it is often nothing the parents do on purpose. More often than not, the key factor is adolescent sexual abuse at the hands of a person of the same sex. In the gay lexicon, such abuse is euphemistically referred to as “initiation.” Why would a “healthy” sexual condition cause people to minimize — hell, even celebrate — childhood sexual abuse?

Chastity Bono, for instance, “discovered” she was gay as a young teen when her mom (Cher) left her in the care of a lesbian while Cher was off being Cher. This woman took advantage of the situation and led Chastity into a lesbian relationship.

So yeah, I am truly sorry to hear that anyone is gay, and I’ll be damned if I will simply accept this travesty as an O.K. lifestyle choice when this person is clearly disturbed.

Sep 1, 2008 - 9:34 pm 170. Roger L Simon:

Ben, let me blunt with you. You are out of your mind and pathetic. This “kid” you talk about is the now 40-year old author of two extremely successful novels from a major publisher (Harper Collins), one of which was just nominated for an Edgar. He is also a graduate of Yale and the University of California (Irvine) in Comp lit. You are an antediluvian homophobe writing prehistoric comments on a website. Please take them elsewhere.

Sep 1, 2008 - 10:24 pm 171. Republicans Against 8 » Roger L. Simon: Republican Against 8:

[...] Against Proposition 8.  Simon explains his support for freedom, fairness and equality in a discussion about Vice Presidential nominee Governor Sarah Palin: The preeminent social issues – gay marriage and abortion – are quite separate.  Lumping them [...]

Sep 2, 2008 - 3:33 pm 172. Roger L. Simon » Of course I am “NO on 8″:

[...] my photo was prominently displayed on the Republicans Against Proposition 8 page with a link to a post I had written on this blog about the differences between the major social issues – gay marriage and abortion. I [...]

Oct 21, 2008 - 7:13 am

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.