Tuesday, April 25, 2006

A rose by any other name

If Google can't find it then it doesn't exist. However, unless I was hallucinating last night durning the 11:00 news on KGW I heard that Ron Saxton supports gay marriage... err, civil unions. Yeah, that's what we call them.

Kind of like how Bush supports amnesty... err, guest workers. Yeah, that's what we call them.

This is why we have the stereotype of the lying politician. They use stupid word games. Calling an apple an orange doesn't change what it is. The same is true for amnesty and gay marriage.

Many people have wondered why I have not chosen to go with Saxton in this race when the illegal immigration issue is so high on my list. I will explain it like this: I like what he says, I don't like who I think he is.

It's the opposite of The Oregonian editorial board when they endorsed him: they like who he is, they don't like what he is saying. (during a Republican primary)

As for why I oppose civil unions, it's simply a special right only for gays. (being gay is something that you can't prove by the way) It's a mandate on private bussiness. (big government) And if you were to counter with "reciprocal benefits" to avoid the discrimination issue you only have a larger mandate on bussiness. It would also further erode the fabric of our society: the family.

Why get married when you can shack up and have all the benefits?

15 comments:

Erik said...

Hey Daniel, here is a link to my blog:

http://tacomatime.blogspot.com

I posted some commentary and pictures of the event.

See ya next time.

Jim in KFalls said...

Want some more word games...

How about, "I do not support additonal sanctions at the state level, and I have no opinion at the Federal level" (talking about additional sanctions against employers who employ illegal aliens) (city club debate 33:05 mark)

Then when talking to Lars Larson on Friday 4/21 - Lars clarified the statement: "...Ron does not support additional sanctions, but he does support the tax plan. The tax plan has the same effect as an additional sanction, but the difference is semantics..." (Lars' tax plan consists of not allowing businesses to deduct wages from people who do not have valid SSN's when the business files it's taxes)

Finally - wouldn't enacting new law that prohibits someone from doing something they have traditionally done be a sanction?

Anonymous said...

Daniel -- I guess the logic of your opposition to gay marriage is not clear to me. Why not let them marry, and then they have the right to all of the benefits of other married people (health care benefits to employers who offer these -- no mandate there -- hospital visitation rights, etc?

As for family erosion, where's the proof in that? Though you seem to think that there is something immoral about homosexuality, not everybody shares your repulsion, and I don't think laws should be fashioned around what lifestyle you find morally acceptable. Your nostalgic notion of the family has more than eroded--it's long gone--and it's not gay marriage that did it. Is gay marriage responsible for this nation's high rates of divorce, spousal abuse, out-of-wedlock children, child molestation, and rapid decline in the academic performance of American school children?

Anonymous said...

So you don't like Saxton (supports gays) and Atkinson (campaign is more than over). That leaves Aimes (wackjob) and Mannix (waiting to be prosecuted). Oh the Republican Party of Oregon...can it ever get it's head out of it's ass.

GUS said...

"Why get married.." is a good question.

Actually, marriage is a pretty obsolete institution that has very little meaning anymore. The previous post is right on in mentioning the "high rates of divorce, spousal abuse, out-of-wedlock children, child molestation, and rapid decline in the academic performance of American school children" that occur already in normal marriages and heterosexual relationships.

The answer is simple. Marriage should not be recognized by the state at all. You can get married if you want to, but all benefits and rights given to partners should fall under civil unions. Instead of a marriage license, we should all just apply for a civil union license--straight or gay.

Mike Mayhem said...

The GAYS MUST BE STOPPED!!!1!1111

Two strangers of the same sex kissing in massachusettes degrades my family life in Oregon. They must be stopped!!!!11 Support teh Cutie Pie Coalition!

We must interfere with their pursuit of happiness to ensure that our lives stay exactly the same as if gays were allowed civil rights.

MAX Redline said...

Well, let me say this about that:

"gay" marriage is an oxymoron.

For one thing, I've never understood how homosexual men have been allowed to appropriate a term that has an actual meaning: happy, festive. Most "gays" I know are neither.

The idea that we should toss out an institution that goes back thosands of years just so that we can pander to the "gays" is ludicrous.

In general, the agenda of the homosexual crowd appears to be to force us to accept their aberrant lifestyle.

I can tolerate it, meaning that I can put up with it. But I don't accept it, because acceptance implies agreement.

I don't attach a morality clause; I simply recognize that it is aberrant behavior; behavior which is fundamentally biologically irrelevant.

terry said...

I'm with Lars, government should stay out of marriaqge and there shouldn't be employer mandates.

And any system can be abused. A former employer knew two opposite-sex gay people - one of whom was a state employee with great benefits - who married so that the one with a life-threatening illness could get paid treatment. (I knew one of them.)

Anonymous said...

Max -- to say something is aberrant and to say that you don't attach moral evaluation of it seems like double-speak to me. Nonetheless, you fail to provide any argument for your "aberrancy" assertion, which is usually the case with conservatives on this issue.

Also:

"The idea that we should toss out an institution that goes back thosands of years" -- Do you know the origins of this insitution? Daughters exchanged as property in return for tribal alliance? You should read Claude Levi-Strauss, and you might not be so enchanted by this age-old institution. Institutions change (thankfully).

BEAR said...

Daniel, I remain unimpressed with any of the current candidates. They will say anything, and weasel around every important issue until the primary is over, then endorse McHilary for '08. They will abandon conservatives, again, as they have in the past. Let them see the undervote, and let the "winner" lose to his democrat clone in the fall.

BEAR said...

To the moonbats who don't understand Oregon Law (the same Constitutional law that finally got jammed down the throats of the Portland lefties last year): If I want to call Perverts by the term Broccoli, you could say, "Wait, we're not Broccoli. We're Gay. That name means a certain vegetable." My response: Oh, you agree that words have meaning. The word MARRIAGE already has a meaning, and it isn't Pervert! Get it?

el razonador said...

How about an election over some issues of REAL importance? Quagmire in Iraq, our economy hangs on the precipice and we have the military industrial establishment calling for the ouster of the Secretary of Defense and questioning the cogency of the nation's foreign-policy, making the American electorate look like the detached, politically unengaged fools that we apparently are, and meanwhile political hacks on the left and the right insist on debating gay marriage and abortion. God help us.

dchamil said...

Calling an apple an orange doesn't change what it is. A widely-quoted quip by Abe Lincoln goes as follows: If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does it have? Answer: It has only four. Calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

Ajax in Ashland said...

I know all three of the major GOP candidates for governor, and they all are solid people who are working hard to convince the voters that their ideas for leading Oregon are the best. Some of these commenters are attributing slimy intentions to them - but they are NOT Democrats, remember?

I am Coyote said...

Anon1001,
You say the Atkinson campaign is "over?"

Hmm... I just talked with them yesterday and they are still up and running.

Oh and wasn't Atkinson on the KGW debate?

Oh... perhaps you are dealing in hyperbole? So you really don't mean it is over. Does that mean you are wrong in the rest of your comment?

I am truly sorry that your not-so-cute comment was so easily dismantled.

yip yip