Gingrich is an unresisting imbecile.

It took a while to shake these dorks out of power, but with morons like Gingrich and Rush hanging around, they should wander in the wilderness for a long time.

"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities." Winston Churchill

And the voting on Newt's most recent marriage is scheduled for...when?

Newt Gringrich has the moral equivalency of a discarded cigarette butt lying in the muddied curb-side gutter, and that is why I will never take any "visionary" balderdash from his fecal-spewing lips.

I mean, when he speaks now, a full-fledged deluge of filth and fetid shit comes forth! What else needs to be known of a man who has no scruples and no moral compass and continues to try to be relevant among the morally-minded non-thinkers of our nation.

He, I would proffer, is the true fascist among us here in the early 21st century. -Kevo

I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us Gingrich

I think you're safe, Newt.

My suspicion is that the right wants to degrade the term fascism before too many people realize how well it applies to them.

There's also a religious fascism that wants to use intimidation, to use the government if it can get its hands on it, to impose its will on the rest of us. It just passed Prop 8 in California.

It just depends on whether you are the one doing the imposing or the one being imposed on, Newt.

It well and truly irks me when these idiots think they can proclaim on high what "those who believe in traditional religion" should feel/think.

I'm Roman Catholic (about as "traditional" a religion as you can get) and I'm pro gay marriage...teh gays don't scare the living bejeebus out of me...and I'm in no way shape or form unique here - there are lotsa catholics just like me...we're called A La Carte Catholics :D

So with all due respect Mr Gingrinch...STFU already.

Buckle-up. America may have come to its senses with this recent election, but please remember that it has the attention span of a four year old. We only play nice in the sand box for small periods of time. People like Ginggrich have egos the size of Mount Rushmore and intellects the size of a peas.

It's going to be our lot in life to keep them honest. Something that has become a bit easier given this elections outcome. The "masses" can be reached in dour times but lets all realize that it took eight freekin' years for the "masses" to wise up. Let's see how long it takes for them to digress into pudding brains this time...

Looks like it was Newt's turn with the random bullsh*t generator.

It's secular! It's fascist! It will use violence! And when that fails, harrassment! And scariest of all, they'll even use government!!! And now, not only are they they after our values, but our very religions!

I tell you, they won't be happy until freedom hating, gay abortionists have burned every church to the ground and dance around the ashes, singing praise to Allah.

I guess we can pencil the Newtster into the party need to move to the right column.

G is full of crap, but the post-Prop 8 activities deserve discussion in another post.

"I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. -- Gingrich

I think it came as a surprise to the theofascists that the liberal pansies didn't curl up and died once the Prop8 passed. The protests and the business boycotts have them whining all over the place (latterly in NYT, over the weekend). Besides.... Isn't it typical of that branch of nuts to accuse others of what they're ding themselves?

His audience is the same exceptionalists who pride themselves on being such great freedom fighters, and they're worried about being bullied by a bunch of gays and antimilitary liberals? They must have been pushovers all the time, and we didn't know it.

They may be in danger of being violently forced to be tolerant. What's next? Wisdom? The world as they know it really may be in danger of coming to an end.

"Liberal Fascism," by the way, was the same kind of bestseller as Jerome Corsi's Obama book -- bought in quantity by rightwing organizations to crash the bestseller lists. Where I live, in a formerly red state, it took a record trip to the remainder pile.

"I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion." --Newt

Well, thanks, Gingrich, for imposing your religion on everyone else!

The homosexual community should try to pass a constitututional amendment that requires Newt to marry Tom DeLay. I could vote for that.

Well, you have to admit that Newt knows more about marriage than most of us -- after all, he's already on marriage #3. And he does seem to think that it's strictly a religious state given that he refused to fulfill his legal responsibilities towards his children from his first marriage after that divorce. So, really, he's just acting on what he knows.

I listened to comments from a caller on Air America that called all those trying to make strict gun laws for their cities...fascists. then he was asked to define what he meant by "fascist" he said it meant anyone trying to take away your rights. He also called those who were protesting Prop 8 fascists. Then he claimed that all liberals were fascists.

Apparently the term is becoming so confusing that it will cease to clearly mean anything beyond name calling someone who disagrees with the right-wing...who actually are fascists. (see what I mean)

So when the term is legitimately used to describe the actions of our corporatocracy the response will be..."Hell, they call everybody fascists" making the term meaningless.

It is the partnership of government and big business to dictate to the people the conditions of their society as judged by a ruling elite.

His audience is the same exceptionalists who pride themselves on being such great freedom fighters, and they're worried about being bullied by a bunch of gays and antimilitary liberals? They must have been pushovers all the time, and we didn't know it.

They may be in danger of being violently forced to be tolerant. What's next? Wisdom? The world as they know it really may be in danger of coming to an end.

"Liberal Fascism," by the way, was the same kind of bestseller as Jerome Corsi's Obama book -- bought in quantity by rightwing organizations to crash the bestseller lists. Where I live, in a formerly red state, it took a record trip to the remainder pile.

So what is the natural purpose of gay marriage? And how does it benefit our country to promote the union of Adam and Ed?

Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich stated: "I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment.

As many people observed at the time, the Doughy Pantload's magnum dopus was just the thin edge of the wedge.

Still, all this whining may appeal to conservatives' sense of entitlement and persecution, but it hardly bolsters the myth of conservatves' rugged individualism...

I think it's perfectly right to call Newt a visionary, if by visionary you mean "he's hallucinating."

Libruls turned me gay.

"I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment." -- Gingrich

You mean like the people in California who sent letters demanding donations from small businesses who had donated to their opponents?

Oh, wait, that was the Yes on 8 people doing that, so clearly they were on the side of Right and Good when they sent their blackmail letters. Boycotting businesses that supported Prop 8 is clearly wrong, but boycotting businesses that opposed it is perfectly okay, I guess.

this notion that there is a "liberal fascism" (a more idiotic oxymoron has probably not been coined), always struck me as a classic case of projection. One thing of which the GOP intellectual elite has never been guilty is sober introspection. These are the guys who NEVER go to therapy..they regard their neurotic problems as a feature, not a bug.

So, they accuse progressives of being fascistic, to avoid the label themselves, a label they so richly deserve, purely on the facts of their words and actions.

(while modern progressives are NOT fascistic almost by definition. The extent to which the projection does not fit is floridly comical, actually--figures, this is the GOP's projection after all..they can't even get that right.)

I dunno if that pantload Goldberg understands any of this, I'm guessing he does, to the extent he understands anything at all. His little tome always struck me as more of a stunt, like Beavis and Butthead playing Frog Baseball..something to shock the sober elders, not anything serious.

But, the way this little meme keeps popping up in right-wing rhetoric suggests that they're all nervous about being tarred with the brush that really was made for them and their views of the world.

In short, Gingrich and his ilk are the real fascistii, and always have been. Always. The melding of State and Corporate power has always been a goal of Reagan republicans, a melding that proceeds in a fog of violent nationalism and know-nothing-ism.

Phil Gramm allowing his rich pals to play with dangerous unregulated securities while the Senate voted on the Schaivo thing is a perfect example of modern GOP fascism.

If you're rich, and right-wing, you get to feed at the trough of the taxpayers' money, while pet politicians distract said taxpayer with dishonest moral questions..

Hence the projection. Guys like Gingrich really don't want to face this truth about themselves and their lives and careers, so they do all they can to avoid that particular showdown, by tossing the truth away, as if it was a particularly noisome bit of garbage. It is noisome...and it's theirs.

Gingrich certainly is a visionary, as in someone who halucinates.

fascism....2: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and race and stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe social and economic regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 1974)

Talkshow hosts should keep a dictionary on hand to confront blowhards with.

Someone turned him into a Newt, but he hasn't gotten better.

Andrew, you wouldn't happen to have a link to a big ol' page of Churchill quotes, would you? The man had a way with words.

fas·cism

1) (a) A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

1) (b) A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

2) Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Well, I guess it makes sense to call gay and secular protests "fascism", since they're so overwhelmingly empowered.

Oh wait... gay people cant even get married, and an atheist wouldnt have a prayer (ahem) of getting elected to national office.

So until gays and secularists have control over ANY aspect of Newt Gingrich's life, he has no reason to use that term.

So what is the natural purpose of gay marriage?

??? What is the natural purpose of video games or polar bear clubs?

And how does it benefit our country to promote the union of Adam and Ed?

It benefits our country by allowing its citizens the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. That's sufficient.

And by the way, let me congratulate you on being one of the very first trolls to come back out of the woodwork on this website after having your party and its odious, reactionary beliefs repudiated by a majority of the voters.

Of course, Newt is right in one regard. I'm a secularist, and I strive to be as dangerous to traditional religion as I can, in the same way that truth is dangerous to lies and fantasies, or in the same way that a needle is dangerous to a bubble.

Yeah, Newt, you're right.

The religious never get violent and try to impose their beliefs on the rest of us by demonstrating against gays or abortions.

Oh, wait a minute.

They kill abortion doctors. They demonstrated outside Matthew Shepard's FUNERAL for chrissakes. They BOMBED the ATLANTA OLYMPICS!

ALL domestic terror has been caused by so-called "religious" and/or conservatives.

Newt "never remember" Gingrinch (yes the spelling is intended).

OT - Dana Bash (CNN) just reported that she's told Dems will allow Lieberman to keep chairmanship of Homeland Sec. Instead they will punish him from taking away his chairmanship of an environmental subcommittee. Jeesh!

I remain in mourning for the passing of Prop.8.

I'm for gay marriage because I can't believe the gays would fuck marriage up any more than we straights have.

And, Newt should know - being on his third marriage.

Look, Newt Gingrich should not be the next President of the United States.

That being said, it's wearing blinders to ignore the violence that has been swirling around the nation by gay activists since Prop 8.

When activists stormed a church service in Michigan; when they chased a cluster of hippie Christians out of a neighborhood in San Fran, necessitating police escort; when they roughed up a little old lady in Florida for holding a cross; are these actions supposed to display a respect for everyones' civil rights? Because they certainly don't communicate that. The leftist illuminati may argue that their suffering has caused angst that will now spill over; I say, even if you think that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue (and many African-Americans don't), look at the non-violent resistance practiced by the original civil rights movement. Rosa Parks didn't scream at any old ladies to go away, she sat, quietly, on a bus.

Well, I for one am open to being a Liberal Fascist. Do we get cool uniforms and stick to go beat the hell out of corporate frauds, rednecks, homophobes, racists and so forth? Will we be allowed to censor the talk radio and traditional media to protect our children? Can we send this idiots to reducation camps and force them to learn the scientific method.

Thanks Newt. You are a visonary.

"So what is the natural purpose of gay marriage? And how does it benefit our country to promote the union of Adam and Ed?"

First of all, get your Talking Points (tm) right.

It's Adam and STEVE, not Adam and Ed.

And I'll tell you what the natural purpose of gay marriage is -- to promote people taking care of other people, committing to those they love to stay with them through thick and thin.

Basically, just the same "natural purpose" as straight marriage.

Because in case you didn't notice, it is NOT naturally necessary to get "married" to have children, nor to provide a stable safe place for children to grow up. As if gay parents aren't good parents.

Tell it to foster children how they shouldn't be adopted into loving homes. How they should instead be passed around for MONEY until they are kicked out into the world at age 18 without ANY support from the government OR from the religious institution of "marriage."

And tell it to all the children of divorced "natural" parents who have to live with their parents each trying to undercut the other and turn the children away from the other parent.

If all of you who think "marriage" is for raising kids who are biological spawn of their two parents REALLY thought that, you'd outlaw divorce, not gay marriage.

But I can hear you now, whining how it's often better for children that their bitterly fighting parents divorce, but that supports MY position, not YOURS.

Children should be cared for by people who love them, and it is much, much easier for two people to raise a child than for one person to do it.

And I can also hear you saying, "well, then, why not three people marrying, or four," and again I agree but don't see how that weighs against GAY marriage.

The perfect should not be taken as the enemy of the good -- ever hear that?

Marriage and the legal benefits that come with it allow one person to work while the other stays home, especially in community property states, and to me, THAT's the best way to raise kids, especially before they go to school. Marriage allows automatic inheritance of a home by a deceased person's spouse, it allows one spouse to make medical decisions for the other (at least in states other than Florida).

I simply cannot believe that people really think having children is THE reason to get married.

True fact. When I was growing up, I always thought it was Newt Gingrich who stole Christmas.

And how does it benefit our country to promote the union of Adam and Ed?

How does it benefit our country to promote the union of any couple? If you say because families are the foundation of our society you already answered your own question-- because we are members of families and are creating our own families.

Just this past Saturday I went to a party in my neighborhood where there were 10 happy kids playing all throughout the house. All of them were adopted and all of them are being raised by either 2 moms or 2 dads. That's one of the few things that most on the anti-gay side don't seem to realize-- many gay people are adopting children that came from unfit heterosexual parent(s). Promoting the stability and rights of these families is in the interest of our society at large.

"And how does it benefit our country to promote the union of Adam and Ed?"

I'd have thought someone else would have remarked by now that nobody is asking anyone to "promote" the union of Adam and Ed; the whole issue is whether the government will PERMIT the union of Adam and Ed. How does it benefit our country to prohibit the union of Adam and Ed?

Trex

For some reason. This blog has been been dull since Kevin left. I'm actually a bit glad that McCain lost. But it's also good to see that the Republican party has a winner when it stands up for true marriage.

WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

Jesus never mentioned homosexuality (although he did help the poor and oppressed) as he is described in the first four Gospels of the New Testament.

Paul did mention it a couple of time as bad -- as kind of side note in instructions.

And the fundamentalist Republicans usually use Leviticus (Old Testament religous rules for living in the desert 1500 years ago) as an excuse -- but they only apply it in this case. I am certain most of them still eat shellfish, I am sure they have not stoned anyone to death, and I doubt that every time they sin they sacrifice a sow or a sheep to atone for their transgression.

This is obviously a power play to get Christian and Morman right contributers for his 2012 campaign. Pat Robertson used the same tactic to raise money with gay cartoon characters, etc etc etc.

It's hate bating and has to stop.

Gee Newt, when was the last time a gang of drunken, secular homosexual fascists tied a straight kid to a fence and beat him to death for being straight? Seems to me like the "fascists" are remarkably peaceful, especially when measured against the record of the good, decent, godly "victims."

What a putz.

My personal homosexual agenda is simply to continue existing as a homosexual, not that it's not easy! I don't know anything about gay and secular fascism but I'm pretty certain the people who have such an attraction to this purported issue simply have unusual persecution complexes that they haven't dealt with yet or are indeed secular fascists themselves. I guess I could get into some fetishism but I draw the line at politics in our bed.

But it's also good to see that the Republican party has a winner when it stands up for true marriage.

Yeah. You keep thinking this is expanding your base. (hint: YOU LOST CALIFORNIA despite Prop Hate, you'll never win anything in the Northeast -- where gay marriage is legal and the sky has yet to fall -- again, the Upper Midwest is fast becoming out of reach and the libertarians in the west just don't give a shit about gay marriage) The old and devout are your anti-gay base and they're dying or being disgusted by your party. You'll always have the Deep South in presidential elections though.

That being said, it's wearing blinders to ignore the violence that has been swirling around the nation by gay activists since Prop 8.

Four examples. One of which may be considered "violent". I condemn them!

Now, of course, about a million people rallied peacefully as well. Surely, you'll point out the swelling of peace that has broken out, and not simply provide cherry-picked examples to prove your point.

What I really hate about the whiny bigots and their fellow travellers is the hysterical lengths they'll go to in order to justify their discomfort with the fact that other consensual adults might be happy and want the same legal rights that they enjoy.

So what is the natural purpose of gay marriage?

Marriage is, historically, an artificial social institution created, largely, to provide for the continuity and management of property. It also serves a role in providing for the material and social support of children.

Both functions would seem to remain the same regardless of the sex, gender, or sexual preference of the participants.

One might argue that, in some or all cases of same-sex marriage, a few incidents of civil marriage either don't make sense (a non-conclusive presumption of paternity in any same-sex union) or serve no purpose (any presumption of paternity in a male same-sex union), but that would seem to me to be a matter of comparatively small details, not the big picture.

And how does it benefit our country to promote the union of Adam and Ed?

Marriage strengthens the economy by providing both convenient mechanisms for mutual support (some of which can be replicated, or approximated, through application of contract law, but that is generally messier, more complicated, and only imperfectly approaches what the institution of civil marriage provides), which encourages specialization and people reaching their full potential as contributors; it also creates an enforceable obligation of mutual support. It strengthens communities and provides more stable environment for raising children. It serves, to some extent, to provide a framework for communicating a social endorsement of monogamy between the partners, and may therefore reduce many social and public health harms that result from promiscuity. Etc. None of these benefits are particularly specific to the sex, gender, or sexual preference of the partners.

The liberal mind is amazingly closed.

Anti-gay marriage is not anti-gay.

Anti-gay marriage is not anti-gay.

I've never heard an argument against gay marriage that was not anti-gay at its base. (Hint: claiming that something is "unnatural" is an anti-gay argument.)

Please present an argument specifically against gay marriage that is not anti-gay.

It's too early to count out Gingrich, but he's repeating McCain's mistake.

There is no escape from the looniness of the religious nutjobs. Either break clean or lose your soul.

If we don't see a Gingrich who praises Republican moderates by the end of 2009, he'll be painted as McCain II.

Justifiably.

Anti-gay marriage is not anti-gay.

Oh right. And I suppose anti-miscegenation laws were not anti-black, either, right? They were just "pro-white"?

Give us a break. Give yourself one.

Denying women the right to vote wasn't protecting "true voting "either; it was simply engaging in being a bigot, as in the case of gay marriage. You may as well own it.

Mnemosyne

It's really very simple. The union of a man and woman Is the way nature provides for the continuation of mankind. Not the union of a man and man or woman and woman. Men and Women have different qualities which when combined make a family. When you combine a man and another man you have two men not a family and the same when you combine two women. Individually they can be fine people. But when you combine two of the same sex they don't equal the combination of two of the opposite sex.

The union of a man and woman Is the way nature provides for the continuation of mankind

The "continuation of mankind" has no necessary connection to marriage. Unmarried people may bear children, married people may choose not to.

Next.

Yet another example of a republican taking an argument that in fact applies to his own views and applying it to the object of his oppression -pass a law that stinks of fascism, and then accuse the affected party of fascism for complaining about it. perfect.

The liberal mind is amazingly closed.

Anti-gay marriage is not anti-gay.

The conservative mind is, predictably, warped.

Supporting discriminating against a group of people is, in fact, anti that group of people.

The union of a man and woman Is the way nature provides for the continuation of mankind.

The sexual union of sexually adult male and female members of the species is, true, the usual manner in which additional members of the species come to be (there are, of course, now others, and since humanity is no less a part of nature than anything else in the universe, those methods are, no less than any other, provided by nature.)

However, it is either intellectually lazy or just plain dishonest to engage in equivocation which equates that sexual union of sexually adult members of opposite species with the social union of marriage, even though both are kinds of "unions". The kind of social union represented by marriage is not necessary to the sexual congress needed to produce children, nor is productive sexual congress necessary to marriage.

One important social purpose of marriage is to provide a union which provides social support viewed as beneficial to the raising of children independently of the production of children: that's why, for instance, there is often a preference for married couples in adoption, why it is often easier for the spouse of a natural parent to legally adopt, and why marriage laws of include a presumption of paternity (and sometimes a conclusive presumption of paternity, such that the union of marriage trumps participation in sexual congress in determining social, rather than mere biological, parentage.)

Men and Women have different qualities which when combined make a family.

A family is a social construct, and socially, while men and women may tend, on average, to have different qualities, they overlap considerably. Physically, of course, there are some pretty definitive differences, but you've provided no reason to believe that the combination of those physical differences is necessary to produce a "family". Even ignoring that assuming social differences that may be true, in broad averages, between men and women often don't hold in particular combinations of one man and one woman, you haven't provided any reason to believe that the combination of such difference is essential to the social function of the unit known as the "family".

hen you combine a man and another man you have two men not a family and the same when you combine two women.

Two brothers are not a family? A mother and a daughter are not a family? If a man and a woman are married one has a sex change they stop being a family?

Your idea of "family" clearly clashes with the way the word is commonly used, and the way the word or its general equivalent has been used throughout most of human history in most societies. On top of that, you've provided no concept of "family" which we could evaluate as socially useful and desirable which supports your conclusions about what is and is not a family, with which one might be convinced that your clearly novel idea of a "family" is one which we might like to adopt, despite its clash with tradition.

"The "continuation of mankind" has no necessary connection to marriage. Unmarried people may bear children, married people may choose not to."

So how does this procreation thing work. Do two men make a child or is it two women.

If we call a couple of the same sex married what do we call a couple of the opposite sex. Ultra_married ?

Oh well it's good to see the republicans have a winning issue. Heck maybe I won't have to move to Russia after all.

It can't really be true that people exist that are stupid enough to think that the natural biological phenomenon of procreation is in any way dependent on artificial societal construct of marriage. Please tell me it isn't so.

Marriage is, historically, an artificial social institution created, largely, to provide for the continuity and management of property

historically, the property is the woman.

marriage was started as a slave institution. In some mental spaces, marriage has become a little more abstract and enlightened, becoming slightly more equal. In other mental backwaters, not so much.

"So how does this procreation thing work. Do two men make a child or is it two women."

Dear heart, since that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, forgive us if we don't indulge your prurient curiosity.

"If we call a couple of the same sex married what do we call a couple of the opposite sex."

Personally, I call them a married couple. What you choose to call them is entirely up to you.

"Oh well it's good to see the republicans have a winning issue."

ROFL.... Yeah, how'd those "winning issues" work for you in 2006 and 2008?

It's really very simple. The union of a man and woman Is the way nature provides for the continuation of mankind. Not the union of a man and man or woman and woman.

Well, that certainly explains why homosexuality never shows up in other animals like dolphins or penguins.

Or have those poor dolphins and penguins been led astray by the Gay Agenda?

Men and Women have different qualities which when combined make a family. When you combine a man and another man you have two men not a family and the same when you combine two women.

You sound like the creepy landlady who refused to rent an apartment to my friend and her sister in Texas. After all, she couldn't have two women living together -- even two women who looked so much alike that they could use each other's ID in a pinch -- because then people might think they were lesbians and not sisters. But I guess you would agree with that creepy landlady since apparently a family is only created when a man and a woman have sex, so really living with her sister would have been exactly like living with a stranger.

If only sex creates a family, I shudder to think what you believe fathers should be doing with their daughters. After all, they're not really a family unless they're having sex, right?

Individually they can be fine people. But when you combine two of the same sex they don't equal the combination of two of the opposite sex.

I don't even know what this means. Is this some spiritual belief about God creating Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve? What kind of "combining" do you think happens when the marriage certificate finishes printing off the county clerk's printer? Because getting that certificate is what makes you legally married, not any amount of mumbo-jumbo said over you by a religious figure. Without a license from the state, you are not legally married even if the Pope himself performs the ceremony. Only that piece of paper from the state means anything.

Trex,

Don't you have a WOW expansion pack to occupy your time or something? Seriously, get over this whole gender stereotypical roles thing you republican knuckledraggers have such a hard-on for. If Republicans really thought that marriage was both sanctified and solely for the sake of procreation, everyone applying for a license would have to be tested for fertility, divorce would be outlawed, and any marriage which did not result in biological offspring within two years would be annulled. As it is, y'all are just too busy obsessing over the horrors of two men kissing to getting around to proving your own arguments.

Trex: Seriously, get over this whole gender stereotypical roles thing you republican knuckledraggers have such a hard-on for.

I believe you've just attributed to me positions which are the opposite of what I have spent my entire time on this blog espousing, and more pointedly, my entire time on this thread.

Perhaps you meant TruthPolitik?

Ah yes. My deepest apologies. It's been a long day, and fatigue-induced moron-exacerbated dyslexia is kicking in. I am quite sorry for the mistake.

Dear TruthPolitik

You pro-idiocy folks always have the most to hide I'm afraid.. So, marriage is meant to overpopulate the planet with adorable little idiots that achieve landfills of baby diapers for procreation's crowning glory. Isn’t that special! Consider gay people as the antithesis of your child's carbon footprint asshole, and stick your theory of exclusivity where only your criminally exclusive and intellectually retarded ego and god-theory exist; up your ass tool! But, no offense to be certain.. Give me your address, I’ll help! I’m so sick to fucking death of you people..

1. Keori, please, we've got enough idiots on WoW, don't send us more.

2. Actually, homosexuality has been shown to be at the root of prehistoric religion, being the spiritual leader of a group/tribe. Considering priest is the 2nd oldest profession, I consider homosexuals to have a good case for their need to a society.

3. Truthpolitik, you may want marriage to be defined strictly for the continuation of the human race, to encourage the prorogation of children. However, unfortunately for this argument, the act of getting married has no contractual obligation to have offspring. However, what it does have is a long list of legal benefits and obligations.

N Wells -- you are exactly right. Goldberg wrote Liberal Fascism because comparisons between fascism and the "cultural purity" and ethnic homogeneity advanced by Movement Conservatism and fascism were hitting just a little too close to home. Therefore the Right had to do what it always does -- project its worst features onto someone or something else. Note how Gingrich's statement is a perfect mirror image of the truth: Gingrich says that "radicals" who "impose" their peculiar vision of the truth onto the rest of us is fascism and constitutes a dangerous threat. He uses the active and aggressive word "impose" (which is what the Christian Right and Cultural Warriors would do) in order to denote something that is passive -- the passive tolerance or acceptance of an action (gay marriage) that is no one's business but the people getting married.

Now that Gingrich has used the "F Word" to describe liberals, I suppose it is now legitimate to begin using it when talking about conservative behavior.

This is either projection or Orwellian smearing.
Newt and his gang are the fascists. (See treatment of homosexuals in Nazi Germany).

If you disagree with Newt you're a "far left ideologue." If you strongly disagree with Newt you're a Fascist.

Conservatives can never just be wrong -- they always try to find sensational ways to portray themselves as a persecuted minority. Newt wants us to debate the sensational charge of liberal Fascism because it takes attention away from his bad ideas.

Keep the focus on Newt's bad ideas.

OK guys, in the name of Saint Newt, quit dodging my question.

Do I get to be a Liberal Fascist or not?

Last night, I went out and bought a really cool uniform and a nightstick.

When do I get to kick some redneck homophobe ass?

P.S. Can we have a really cool flag too? Something in red and black?

Isn't Newt one of the biggest hypocrites that was involved in the Clinton impeachment? Wasn't he one of the loudest voices, if not THE loudest, crying for Clinton's head (no pun intended)?
After all, wasn't he cheating on his cancer strickin wife, and divorced her while she lay in a hospital bed?
And he's going to be the next GOP leader?

historically, the property is the woman.

That's actually not all that universally true; women were, for a wide variety of reasons, generally at least economically dependent in pre-modern cultures, but quite often nothing like property of their husbands, though the degree of dependence is a highly dependent on time, place, and social status. (In most pre-modern examples that I am familiar with, the degree to which the "women as property" argument resembles reality is directly related to social status, that is, higher status means women are treated more like property in marriage.)

It is much more universally true that marriage existed to provide for the maintenance and preservation of property than that it involved women as property.

So how does this procreation thing work.

The union of gametes. This requires donors of opposite sexes, and in the usual case (though there are ways around that now) requires them to have sexual intercourse.

It doesn't require them to be married, though.

Marriage is a structure that, inasmuch as it is related to children at all, is related to raising, supporting, and socializing children, which has little necessary connection to producing them.

If we call a couple of the same sex married what do we call a couple of the opposite sex.

Married. Just like we can call an infertile couple of opposite sex married and a fertile couple of opposite sex married, even though only the latter can produce children.

Oh well it's good to see the republicans have a winning issue.

So, you are saying only position Republicans have left is ignorant hatemongering?

So, you are saying only position Republicans have left is ignorant hatemongering?

You're saying they had other positions to begin with? Why didn't someone tell me? I need to know these things!!!

Oh, wait...

Perhaps if they'd call THEMSELVES fascists...

What bothers me is that while the liberals win every argument on every blog thread (minor celebration), the knuckle draggers (Gingrich, O'Reilly, Savage, Limbaugh, Malkin, etc.) are out there whipping up some major hatred against Obama and against us. They are taking a page straight from Goering: tell the people they're being attacked, and they'll follow you to war. The skyrocketing gun sales tell me two things: I should have bought shares in firearms companies, and the hate radio jocks are being successful. Until we effectively counter this, we will win every battle on the blogs, but lose the only one that counts.

Awww! C'mon Newty Wooty! We just wanna fix that dead opossum you call a hairpiece. I know you hate gays and think all hair stylists are gay but that's really no excuse for looking like that. We won't gay you. C'mon! Please man! Just let us fix it. You'll like the new you!

The word facism is difficult to define, but it is usually explained this way: A political ideology which considers the minority and disregards the desires of a majority.
Though this term does not completely descibe gay marriage activists in California, it comes earily close. Facism is by nature opposed to democracy and liberalism. Gay marriage is a liberal idea without doubt, but it is only a product of liberalism.
In California, the democratic vote of the people banned gay marriage. Gay marriage advocates and perhaps soon the California Supreme Court would tell the people that they don't have the right to decide. Is pro-choice an idea promoted by gay marriage activists?
Think of it, a government that IGNORES the will of the people, didn't someone famous say something about a Government for the people by the people, or is it A Government over the people and in control of the people?
A solid majority in California said NO! The minority apparently don't care. This leaves us with two options, tyranny, or democracy. I support gay marriage, but that is MY opinion, I will never FORCE others to see things my way, that is called Facism.