Comments on: A political anecdote

By: Amy Alkon

Amy Alkon — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:18:13 +0000

Another anon is exactly right.

And this sort of thinking by Helsa is part of why I’m alienated by the Republican party. And I’m a serious fiscal conservative — one who found George Bush to be the biggest Big Democrat we’ve had in office since FDR. Disgusting.

The GOP turns legislators like Jeff Flake, former head of the Barry Goldwater Institute, into outcasts because he goes after earmarks and earmarkers. Yeah, go ahead, GOP, keep talking the small government talk while being just somewhat less profligate about spending than the Democrats and keep trying to legislate morality. I’ll continue throwing my vote to the Libertarians…although one hopes they’ll one day run a candidate for president who isn’t a total loser.

By: another anon

another anon — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:07:29 +0000

I usually avoid the political discussions here, but I have to say Helsa’s argument doesn’t fly with me. 50 years ago someone could have made the same argument about blacks and whites marrying. Would you accept a racist saying “Blacks and whites can call themselves married, just don’t make me pay for it”? The time is coming when same sex couples are going to be viewed in the same light. Given the overwhelming support of gay relationships by the younger generations, that time is coming sooner than you might think!

By: Cal

Cal — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:43:30 +0000

Excellent points, Chris. Will never happen, though. The kooky left and kooky right are too entrenched in their respective political parties. Regarding marriage, why is the government even in that business? Live and let live. It’s always a joy to hear the self-appointed moralists pontificate about the “sanctity” of marriage…yeah, as if heterosexual marriage (divorce rate still 50%?) is such a stable institution.

By: Arouet

Arouet — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 03:25:20 +0000

A party that preaches fiscal discipline and rejects all attempts to legislate a particular morality would indeed be a dream come true. But this is more difficult than it appears. On most of the really difficult issues, the lines get blurred. Is it fiscally conservative to provide health care to mothers in labor who have no way to pay for it? Is that done for moral reasons, and if so, should it be stopped?

By: christopherfountain

christopherfountain — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:06:16 +0000

Everyone knows white collar criminals – a dime a dozen in Greenwich. Reformed armed robbers, car thieves, rapist, now that’s interesting. None of which rules out Walt, I suppose. And the art work in Moodus is better – not a friggin’ Labrador retriever to be seen.

By: pulled up in OG

pulled up in OG — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:46:25 +0000

If ya wanna hang out w/felons, RHC’s a lot closer, and the first round’s on Walt.

By: christopherfountain

christopherfountain — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:24:43 +0000

I know plenty of people who married dogs, JD – my Pal Nancy among them!

By: JD

JD — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:21:36 +0000

“from the point of view of an employer who thinks marriage should be between people of opposite sex only and wants to deny insurance benefits to the partner, it means being forced to accept an arrangment he/she deems deeply wrong.”

WOW. Basically you’re saying that it should be legal for a company to discriminate as to who qualifies for health insurance coverage based on their sexual orientation. Most large companies already allow domestic partners of employees to be covered under their plan, so your argument is not only discriminatory and backward, it is also pointless. And comparing a man marrying his dog to the marriage of two human beings? Pathetic.

By: christopherfountain

christopherfountain — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:24:21 +0000

So keep the state put of it, let people marry who (or what) they please, without state sanction, forced insurance coverage, etc.

By: christopherfountain

christopherfountain — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:22:31 +0000

We’re on the same page, Helsa