[Overpaid Slacker]

jc

How and when did the lunatic fringe get ahold of the republican party? This is you "calmly observing" something? Compared to the hystrionics following my disagreement that the issue of precluding gay marriage is either "lunatic" or "fringe," I suppose that's relatively accurate... that statement was your calmest.

My comment about the 2nd para was to Purrybonker, not you; so the "do I" is mistaken, or the highest of Liberal dudgeon -- victimhood. Which, coincidentally is the currency every small interest group tries to use as the Coin of the Realm for influence in the legislature and the courts.

The federal legislature cannot be consumed by the interests of every single little group -- that's the tyranny of the minority (or special interest group) and that's definitely not a principle of the Constitution, or of federalism in general. Should the legislature listen to its constituents, large and small? Certainly. But it's fantasy to think it should (or could) tilt at every single windmill every single group (or individual!) complains of. If you believe so doing is a principle of the Constitution, please provide your sources -- I've got a set of the Federalist Papers in my office, so start there if you'd like.

You've again taken a conditional hypothesis and stated it as fact -- IF you cannot accept there is principled disagreement and engage in ad hominem attacks THEN you've become what you despise (that's what "conservatives" do, no? dismiss others' opinions and treat opposing political theories with contempt). You seek to mistreat me ad hominem for having disagreed with you, so MAYBE it's the case that you're a conservative (code word for "bigot"). Maybe you're just off your meds; who knows?

As far as cause/effect -- absolutely you got that wrong. My point is that Republicans are not doing this in response to a poll, but out of principle. In some logic-defying twist, you responded with "Well, we've conducted a poll that says X, so that's what we'll do" i.e., doing something in response to a poll. If you can't see the contradiction there, you're beyond my ability to assist. I suspect you see it, but it's inconvenient, so you elide over it; as though I or our fellow travelers won't notice. That's the crazy we're not buying here.

In any event, to recap - I have no strong opinion for or against gay marriage; and I believe that it is not a "conservative" position to be anti. Unless, of course, more than half of Americans are "conservative", which I doubt. It so happens that the polls indicate that disallowing gay marriage is not some "out-there" "meanspirited" fringe notion. But the polls haven't driven the conservative platform on this point -- some issues are broader than one party or one label; but branding it "conservative" is an attempt to deligitimize the issue and preclude debate.

Your prior post is further evidence of that -- nothing on the point of whether the issue truly is fundamentally or statistically "conservative" or "popular" or whether there are or may be merits to the anti-gay marriage side of the debate (which would involve conceding there was another "side"), but instead a bunch of "see how I've been wronged!" self indulgent, bilious retaliation.

All of that said, I do believe that any plank that involves dissolution of civil unions or erosion of rights between homosexuals is unconscionable.

As for the brainwashing/sticky bible stuff you mentioned, I didn't say that, nor do I believe it. Though if I were to stick something to your person at this moment, it might be a transdermal valium patch.

Relax, jc. I wouldn't post in your threads merely to torment you. I've got loads of people I can torment. I believe you've got worthy opinions (except for that "there's no media bias" crap) and you can be eloquent ... when you're David Banner. However, even those that would empathize/agree with your positions must cringe when you get all green and go off the rails for haphazard and gratuitous attacks, abandoning any attempt at presenting an argument for your case, on its merits in the context of and in response to others' opinions. It amounts to conceding the issue at hand.

JP