Morning Report – Light Data week ahead 4/7/14

Vital Statistics:

 

  Last Change Percent
S&P Futures  1854.4 -5.7 -0.31%
Eurostoxx Index 3199.4 -31.0 -0.96%
Oil (WTI) 100.4 -0.7 -0.73%
LIBOR 0.229 0.000 -0.11%
US Dollar Index (DXY) 80.32 -0.101 -0.13%
10 Year Govt Bond Yield 2.72% 0.00%  
Current Coupon Ginnie Mae TBA 105.2 0.0  
Current Coupon Fannie Mae TBA 104.2 0.0  
RPX Composite Real Estate Index 200.7 -0.2  
BankRate 30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgage 4.35    

Markets are lower this morning worldwide and US futures are following. Bonds and MBS are up small.

 
This week is a light one data-wise, with only the FOMC minutes (which will be released on Wed) as a potential catalyst. The market will be parsing the minutes looking for more color around the “as soon as six months” comment. 
 
This week starts off earnings season, and we will hear from JP Morgan and Wells late in the week. We will probably see poor mortgage banking numbers out of both (although Wells is very aggressive these days bidding paper). 
 
According to Black Knight Financial Services, monthly origination volume is the lowest on record. The government’s share of originations has fallen due to a sharp drop in HARP loans. There is very little origination activity happening in the lowest credit score buckets.
 

165 Responses

  1. Frist!

    I got nothin’.

    Like

  2. Brent, because the origination numbers are for February, couldn’t they be chalked up to the unseemly blustery, cold, and snowy winter?

    Housing starts in Austin are way up again.

    Like

  3. Texas has got to be propping up nation’s overall GDP. It’s just humming here. New housing starts are really high.

    Like

  4. George, I agree. did you see the difference in small biz outlook in TX vs. national?

    Like

    • McWing/Mark:

      Looking for a good place for a week’s vacation down in Texas this summer. Any recommendations? No specific requirements, just looking for a place that might be fun to hang out in for 4 or 5 days with the family.

      (My daughter wants to look at some schools in Texas, and I’m trying to combine visits with a family vacation.)

      Like

      • Scott, everyplace in Texas except the mountain west is brutally hot in summer and beyond the capacity of a CT person to comprehend. “Comedy heat” my Brit son-in-law calls it.

        If your daughter is looking at Rice and Trinity there are plenty of indoorsy things to enjoy in Houston and San Antonio. Same for Austin if she is looking at UT, or DFW if she is looking at TCU or SMU or UT-D, or UT-Arlington, or UNT.

        The only college in the mountain west is Sul Ross. Not recommended. edit: I guess you could say UTEP is in the mountain west and EP is high and dry enough to make summer evenings nice.

        However, tell us more of where you intend to visit for college and we can both get specific, I am sure. Again, the only places to enjoy being outside are in the Davis Mountains or Guadelupe Mountains.

        Like

        • I was afraid the heat might be an issue. The one school I know she wants to look at is SMU, but I will get a better list and get back.

          BTW, don’t forget I lived for almost 7 years in Hong Kong, so I have some familiarity with that kind of brutal summer heat.

          Like

  5. ““We demand that Google give three billion dollars to an anarchist organization of our choosing,” the post said. “This money will then be used to create autonomous, anti-capitalist, and anti-racist communities throughout the Bay Area and Northern California. In these communities, whether in San Francisco or in the woods, no one will ever have to pay rent and housing will be free.”

    Via Ace: http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2014/04/06/anti-tech-protesters-target-google-ventures-partner-kevin-rose/

    Like

  6. Scott, the Hill Country is always nice but kinda serene for teens. I recommend New Braunfels Texas. Halfway between San Antonio and Austin. It’s on a beautiful river (tubing there is sublime) and there’s a water park that’s fantastic. Gruene is next door with great Texas music flavor (Gruene Hall is a great honkytonk). There are lots of BnB’s if that’s your thing as well. Should be great golfing nearby and Austin or SA is 40 mins away.

    It’ll be hot btw.

    Like

  7. Funny Mark and I mention the heat.

    Like

  8. Darling Fascist Bullyboy, give me some more money, you bastard. May the seed of your loin be fruitful in the belly of your woman, love Neil.

    Like

  9. Houston’s about 2 -21/2 hrs from NB as well.

    Like

  10. There’s always Midland…………………hahahahahaha

    Like

  11. Thanks for all the suggestions yesterday, picked up two books and two series so I’ll have plenty to do while daughter is recovering…………..I imagine she’ll sleep for a couple of days anyway. I’m also going to their gym everyday when her boyfriend gets home to burn off some energy and give them alone time. 😉

    I’ll try to check in a couple of times when I get bored……………..LOL

    Like

  12. Only if you want to see a vibrant economy the rest of the country envies…

    😜

    Like

  13. Brent, Is that a Young Ones reference?

    Like

  14. Brent, Is that a Young Ones reference?

    Yes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANquX0YHFhw

    Like

  15. http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/blog/2014/04/medicaid-chip-determinations-february.html

    Medicaid enrollment. HHS isn’t breaking it down by type. just overall numbers compared in expansion vs. non-expansion states.

    Like

  16. I hate Politico, but my love for Club for Growth just increased.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/inside-the-club-for-growths-art-of-war-105415.html

    This is why there is a strong leftish (and by leftish I include moderate/establishment Republicans) objection to money=speech. There is a very STRONG desire to control who can give. Us Baggers are what happens when the WRONG people want to participate. We get told what we should be telling women, “know your place!”

    Like

  17. No, you shouldn’t be coerced into a private contract.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/07/us-usa-court-freespeech-idUSBREA360Y020140407

    I don’t understand why someone would legitimately want to force someone to do business with them. Had the photographer taken the business and say all the pictures didn’t turn out, then the usual recourse is simply not to be charged. I believe that most states that conform to the UCC provide for the ability to limit damages to the actual cost of the service being provided.

    Like

    • jnc:

      I don’t understand why someone would legitimately want to force someone to do business with them.

      I am equally bewildered by this. And it is what makes me think that the whole effort derives from a desire to punish people who have the “wrong” thoughts rather than a desire to obtain a given service.

      Like

  18. How much is churn? Also, how much of non-expansion state numbers are because of the woodwork effect?

    Assholes. Why do Democrats hate the poor?

    http://m.nationalreview.com/corner/348287/game-changing-oregon-medicaid-study

    Like

  19. Don’t know, Troll. The tell will be when they start drawing down federal funds. it will either be under the old state-specific FMAP, or the new 100%. obviously, there will be some of both.

    Like

  20. ” legitimately want to force someone to do business with them”

    particularly for a wedding. But I suppose they don’t really want them baking a cake or photographing the big day. They want them to go out of business. Assimilate or be destroyed.

    Like

  21. Is it that the left is constantly misinformed about Libertarianism or is it willful ignorance?

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/nlpd-non-libertarian-police-department/360224/

    What not Progressive political/economic philosophy do Progressives view as legitimate? Something that Progressives might not agree with but still accept as a reasonable way to do things?

    Like

  22. particularly for a wedding. But I suppose they don’t really want them baking a cake or photographing the big day. They want them to go out of business. Assimilate or be destroyed.

    That’s hard to argue with. Is Yello disagree’s with this ID love to hear it. Perhaps somebody could ask him, he resents questions from me.

    Like

  23. “What not Progressive political/economic philosophy do Progressives view as legitimate?”

    You are behind on the arguments. Not being progressive is viewed by progressives as a mental disorder due to bad genes. Why engage with someone who is mentally unbalanced?

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/inquiring-minds-john-hibbing-physiology-ideology

    Like

  24. Juiceboxer’s just can’t catch a break.

    To be fair, I don’t believe the CBO numbers either. I’m guessing they’re 1/2 to 1 trillion dollars off.

    Like

  25. “Not being progressive is viewed by progressives as a mental disorder due to bad genes”

    And we’re back to we we started 100+ years ago with eugenics.

    Like

  26. Nova, don’t forget the Soviet Union & reeducation.

    Like

  27. Right. the camps.

    in a joke thread about the re-education camps we’ll all be sent to someone in Reason’s comment section wrote: “The anarchists are comparing the mini-archists to the guards!”

    Like

  28. I’m a scrounger, don’t forget. I’ll have cigarettes, booze and condoms in the camps. Look me up!

    Like

  29. But I suppose they don’t really want them baking a cake or photographing the big day. They want them to go out of business.

    This. It is totalitarianism in action. Nothing less.

    Just compare to how all those PL nitwits like bernie prattle about how conservatives and libertarians are in it to punish other people. Some gall they have.

    Edit: corked as usual, although I don’t think you are bewildered by it at all, Scott.

    Like

  30. Better movie: The Great Escape or Stalag 17?

    Like

    • Better movie: The Great Escape or Stalag 17?

      Critics all claim Stalag 17. But it was an adaptation of a stage play. It could only be a very good movie.

      A movie, to be great, according to moi, must be able to present a story in a way that a novel or a play cannot – it must use the unique strength of the SCREEN. Lawrence of Arabia is the archetypal example of a great movie, but one could say that about Gravity, as well, or on a smaller scale, The Usual Suspects, which would have had no impact on the stage and could not have kept its secrets in a novel.

      Also, I watch my copy of The Great Escape religiously, twice a year.

      Like

  31. Stalag 17 William Holden is unparalleled. Remember Bridge on the River Kwai?

    Like

  32. No, you shouldn’t be coerced into a private contract.

    This is one of the issues on which I’ve been deemed Insufficiently Liberal on PL. Evidently the Libertarian in me came out, and several folks who usually like me decided that I’m Evil.

    Like

  33. BTW, The Getaway > Bullit.

    Like

  34. also a good one. how could i forget Sir Alec Guinness.

    Like

  35. This is one of the issues on which I’ve been deemed Insufficiently Liberal on PL. Evidently the Libertarian in me came out, and several folks who usually like me decided that I’m Evil

    Ultimately, however, you have a real problem. You believe, I believe, that refusing a gay wedding is the same as refusing a wedding based on race, and support legal prohibition of the latter. I am aware of no principle on which you can make that distinction.

    Like

  36. Hart’s War is an excellent WWII prison camp movie. As is Empire of The Sun. The bookKing Rat is also good.

    Like

    • McWing;

      The bookKing Rat is also good.

      Great book. I’ve enjoyed most of Clavell’s books, although I thought that was particularly good given that it was based on his actual experiences in Changi.

      Like

  37. mark,

    Another film raising interesting questions about the point you make is one of Denzel Washington’s first ones, in the 80s. Called A Soldier’s Story, I think? It is quite good (although perhaps the twist is a little cliched) but was adapted from a play.

    A Few Good Men was also a play first and is a tremendous film.

    Like

  38. Scott, I like Ballard’s Empire of the Sun for the same reason.

    Like

  39. I hate the premise behind A Few Good Men. They didn’t know he was medically compromised, he came across as a shitbird. The Colonel’s instinct, to train him, was the right one.

    Like

  40. I have no brief for the whole premise or much of the setup of conflicting duties etc. in A Few Good Men. The end is awfully hokey, too. Even some of the dialog is hokey. I just like some of its film aspects a lot. As a lawyer, I should probably laugh at the courtroom scenes, but it is so well done as film drama that I enjoy it. What impresses me is that the trap in the famous cross should be fairly obvious but is handled in such deft way that it is hard to see coming. It does use some classic cross-examination techniques like getting the witness to commit as strongly as possible, appealing to witness arrogance, etc.

    Like

  41. QB, the real villain(s) in the movie is/are the incompetent squid doctor and Colonel Jessup’s abandonment of principal at the first sign of duress, that allowed his Marines, who were following his order, to deprived not just of livery but potentially they’re lives.

    Typical officer behaviors though, if you ask me.

    Like

  42. And I would have ordered the Code Red. You’re Goddam right I (would have) ordered the Code Red!

    Like

  43. Typical officer behaviors though, if you ask me.

    You’ve complained about officers before. Did you have a particular officer in mind, or is this your anti-authoritarianism coming out (which you’ve also talked about)? I’m honestly curious, not trying to “gotcha”.

    I don’t think I’ve said this before, but given the fact that you haven’t ever liked authority figures I’m amazed that you went into the Marines. What led to that decision? And do you regret it or are you happy that you had the experience?

    Like

  44. QB, the real villain(s) in the movie is/are the incompetent squid doctor and Colonel Jessup’s abandonment of principal at the first sign of duress, that allowed his Marines, who were following his order, to deprived not just of livery but potentially they’re lives.

    See no reason to disagree there. And the lying, weaselly Captain and cowardly former intel dude.

    Like

  45. Michi, I hate the status difference between officers and enlisted. It make NO sense to me. Saluting? Using “sir” (or ma’am)? Total bullshit that only serves to feed ego and encourage servility.

    Plus, I like teasing you.

    Like

  46. And I’m happy I was in the Marines. Emphasis on was. 😄

    Like

  47. Lol Gibbs paid to criticize Ocare! Need anyone say yet again, impossible to parody ….

    Like

  48. Actually he was being paid to provide an honest analysis about the program and it’s likely future.

    In his previous position he was paid to spin and lie.

    Like

  49. Plus, I like teasing you

    Shouldn’t that have been, “Plus, I like teasing you ma’am“??

    Like

  50. Like

  51. Good commentary by Floyd Abrams in Scott’s link.

    I doubt many people appreciate just how radical and at odds with the First Amendment the Breyer view is. It uses subtle, shifty language to effect a complete reversal of what the Free Speech clause plainly says and was intended to mean. All the clever language leads back to the same blunt, perverse idea that government must suppress A’s speech in order to protect B’s “right to be heard,” or to stop A from being heard “too much.” It is pernicious and wicked to the core.

    It’s pure doublespeak. And four justices voted for it. Everyone an Obama would nominate probably would. That’s how far we have fallen and how imperilled our freedom is.

    Like

  52. That’s how far we have fallen and how imperilled our freedom is.

    You do make me laugh. Hyperbole much?

    Like

  53. CK agrees with me: the left’s new gay orthodoxy is totalitarian.

    http://americanglob.com/2014/04/05/charles-krauthammer-the-lefts-attack-on-brendan-eich-was-totalitarian/

    Charles seriously needs to get off my coattails. : )

    Like

  54. You do make me laugh. Hyperbole much?

    I expect nothing more. If you can’t see the peril in the fact that you are one SCOTUS vote away from full endorsement of the incredible notion that the First Amendment was adopted to empower Congress to limit your political speech, I’m afraid your perception of reality versus hyperbole is too far gone to help.

    Like

    • qb:

      If you can’t see the peril in the fact that you are one SCOTUS vote away from full endorsement of the incredible notion that the First Amendment was adopted to empower Congress to limit your political speech, I’m afraid your perception of reality versus hyperbole is too far gone to help.

      It is fairly routine to hear people on the left dismiss as “hyperbole” or a slippery slope the logical implications of the policies and legal notions for which they advocate. Years ago during debates over the creation of civil unions and the legal rights they entailed, the left routinely dismissed anyone who raised the idea that marriage laws might one day be compelled to include gays. Crazy talk! Yeah sure. I recall having debates with people on the left over laws that banned smoking in private establishments, and suggesting that if that is reasonable, then surely banning restaurants from serving “unhealthy” food is equally reasonable. Preposterous! Slippery Slope! Welcome, Nurse Bloomberg.

      I don’t know whether progressives suffer from a serious lack of foresight, or if they are just being disingenuous. But it happens pretty routinely.

      Like

  55. Lulz.

    Like

  56. I’m afraid your perception of reality versus hyperbole is too far gone to help.

    I’m pretty sure that my grounding in reality is fairly firm. Enjoy, though.

    Like

  57. Shorter Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor: silly Americans; free speech is a collective right, not an individual one, like the right to abortion. The First Amendment’s purpose is to give Congress power to allocate speech.

    Progressives are people who think that actually makes sense.

    Like

  58. QB is exactly right about the logic of Breyer’s reasoning.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/02/breyers-dangerous-dissent-in-mccutcheon-the-campaign-finance-case/

    Whether or not it would command a majority remains to be seen.

    I agree with Justice Thomas on the clear meaning of “Congress shall make no law”, but that of course leaves me on the fringe.

    BTW, I don’t know if any one saw Bill Maher on Friday but the representative from the “left” (Alex Wagner) basically conceded that the right’s view of the Constitution was accurate, but also argued that it was irrelevant because “we have the 20th century and all you guys have is the 18th”. It was refreshing in it’s honesty of viewing the Constitution as outdated.

    http://www.hbo.com/real-time-with-bill-maher#/real-time-with-bill-maher/episodes/12/313-episode/index.html

    Like

    • jnc:

      It was refreshing in it’s honesty of viewing the Constitution as outdated.

      I agree. I think someone here (Mich, perhaps?) once said essentially the same thing. As absolutely wrong-headed as I think that is, it has the virtue of at least being forthright.

      It would be refreshing if we could just have an honest debate about the usefulness of the constitution, and decide once and for all whether it should still be the cornerstone of the nation’s laws, or if it should just be launched. But I suspect the left’s best chance at destroying it, however, is in the slow, guerilla-like attacks via inexplicable “interpretations” rather than a full-on, frontal assault. I think they know it, which is why they go about it the way they do.

      BTW, I suspect that the left doesn’t so much want to destroy the constitution as much as they simply don’t particularly care about it in principle. If it helps them achieve their goals, great. If not, they want to be able to ignore it. Having said that, if one was actually trying to devise a plan with the long term goal of altering or destroying the constitution in the absence of popular support, could there be a better plan than the way in which the left has actually gone about doing exactly that, whether intentionally or not?

      Like

  59. I agree w/ QB and Scott re the Breyer opinion. That is some scary shit and all they’re missing is one. more. vote. Read it Michi, it really is disturbing.

    Like

  60. “Congress shall make no law”

    well, clearly by “no” they meant “several”

    Like

  61. I agree w/ QB and Scott re the Breyer opinion.

    Shocked! I. Am. Shocked!!!!!

    Meh. The day this SCOTUS does anything actually liberal I’ll be shocked.

    Like

    • Mich:

      The day this SCOTUS does anything actually liberal I’ll be shocked.

      ACA went your way. And Roe/Casey remains the law, despite nearly 25 years of a majority of justices appointed by Republicans. It’s really hard to overstate the value that the Supreme Court has had in advancing the progressive project over the years.

      Like

  62. Typical officer’s response. (Shakes head more in sorrow then frustration.)

    Like

  63. ” actually liberal I’ll be shocked.”

    I don’t think liberal means what it used to anymore.

    Like

    • nova:

      I don’t think liberal means what it used to anymore.

      I don’t think it even used to mean what it originally meant, either.

      Like

  64. Typical officer’s response

    Drop and give me ten! [EDIT: you can think of this as CrossFit. Thank NoVA, not me]

    I don’t think liberal means what it used to anymore.

    I don’t, either.

    Like

  65. Reading comprehension check:

    “Being better at math didn’t just fail to help partisans converge on the right answer. It actually drove them further apart. Partisans with weak math skills were 25 percentage points likelier to get the answer right when it fit their ideology. Partisans with strong math skills were 45 percentage points likelier to get the answer right when it fit their ideology. The smarter the person is, the dumber politics can make them.

    Consider how utterly insane that is: being better at math made partisans less likely to solve the problem correctly when solving the problem correctly meant betraying their political instincts. People weren’t reasoning to get the right answer; they were reasoning to get the answer that they wanted to be right.”

    http://www.vox.com/2014/4/6/5556462/brain-dead-how-politics-makes-us-stupid

    Ezra’s second paragraph doesn’t follow from the first, in fact it’s the opposite correct? “More likely to get the answer right when it fit their ideology” isn’t an example of politics making you dumber.

    Edit:

    “At one point in our interview Kahan does stare over the abyss, if only for a moment. He recalls a dissent written by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in a case about overcrowding in California prisons. Scalia dismissed the evidentiary findings of a lower court as motivated by policy preferences. “I find it really demoralizing, but I think some people just view empirical evidence as a kind of device,” Kahan says.”

    He needs to read Naomi Klein on climate change:

    “For the left, “Climate change is the perfect thing…. It’s the reason why we should do everything [the left] wanted to do anyway.”

    Here’s my inconvenient truth: they aren’t wrong.”

    http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=0,1

    Like

  66. Years ago during debates over the creation of civil unions and the legal rights they entailed, the left routinely dismissed anyone who raised the idea that marriage laws might one day be compelled to include gays. Crazy talk! Yeah sure.

    Precisely this. The same wild-eyed liberal mob who is now rolling gay marriage through the courts argued ten years ago that it was insane, right-wing kookery to say it would ever happen. That was the main argument against marriage amendments and referenda: they were completely unnecesssary, hence nothing but gratuitous hatred.

    These people are shameless and ruthless, and committed with every fiber of their being to a totalitarian future.

    Meh. The day this SCOTUS does anything actually liberal I’ll be shocked.

    This is why I don’t take your views or arguments seriously. They aren’t serious.

    Like

  67. Scott:

    ACA is hardly liberal–it was a Heritage product, implemented by Gov Romney, then embraced by President Obama. Roe/Casey is liberal? Really?

    Heh.

    Like

    • Mich:

      ACA is hardly liberal–it was a Heritage product,…

      I know that is the standard D talking point, and that single payer is the liberal gold standard, but ACA is a weigh-station on the way to that goal, a goal which was/is simply unachievable in this country without the interim step. Upholding ACA is unquestionably a liberal decision. That is why the 4 liberals voted in unison in the majority on it.

      Roe/Casey is liberal? Really?

      Yes. If you dispute that, then you really are confirming my most recent comments about speaking different languages.

      Like

  68. These people are shameless and ruthless, and committed with every fiber of their being to a totalitarian future.

    Don’t worry–I won’t let you down. Your name is at the top of my list for FEMA camp.

    Like

  69. I guess what Michi is saying is that only a SCOTUS decision compelling women to have partial-birth abortions or compelling fundamentalist Christians to pay for them would meet the standard of being truly liberal. Or maybe having a death panel decide which babies must be aborted.

    What else could qualify? Maybe recognition of a full-blown 14th Am right to unlimited, government-funded contraception. Sex toys, too, maybe? 100% tax rate on everyone? Abolition of private property and enterprise?

    Okay, I will agree that these are the sorts of policies that would embody a full realization of modern liberalism.

    Like

  70. “Michigoose, on April 7, 2014 at 3:55 pm said:

    Scott:

    ACA is hardly liberal–it was a Heritage product, implemented by Gov Romney, then embraced by President Obama. Roe/Casey is liberal? Really?

    Heh.”

    Leaving aside the talking points, those arguments are about the content of the legislation itself, not the legal reasoning for upholding or overturning it.

    Like

  71. You guys are really doing a good job of showing how much conservatives support women. Really.

    And how you’re never, ever, ever into hyperbole.

    Like

    • Mich:

      You guys are really doing a good job of showing how much conservatives support women. Really.

      What a bizarre thing to say. I am really at a loss. The only way I can make sense of it is that this is an indication that you think that “supporting women” requires one to embrace Roe/Casey. Whether or not one “supports women” has no bearing on what the constitution says or means, and it is impossible to rationally discuss the legal merits and implications of a SCOTUS decision with someone who thinks it does.

      Like

  72. Ah, yes, of course, I hate women. That explains everything.

    Like

  73. The most obvious recent example for you Michi would be the gay marriage decisions.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gay-marriage.html?pagewanted=all

    Like

  74. Here he goes again:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/harry-reid-koch-brothers-nascar-105437.html?hp=l7

    Edit:

    If he’s going to take that tact, he should dispense with the false civility. The Republicans aren’t his friends.

    “The Koch brothers’ agenda is an agenda that is not my agenda. It is not our agenda. But is it your agenda, I say to my Republican friends?”

    Like

  75. One of Troll’s favorites, and one of the liberals’ leading intellectual lights, melts down and drops f-bomb in radio tirade against caller. Good heavens 3 or 4 people could have heard the broadcast!

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/375243/ed-schultz-erupts-caller-drops-f-bomb-censor-catches-andrew-johnson

    Like

  76. QB: FEMA camp. I’m coming for you!

    Like

  77. he should dispense with the false civility

    But that would be asking a senator to act like he doesn’t like other senators!

    I’ve always thought it was fairly endearing that they pretended to like each other.

    Like

    • They probably do like each other. They are in the same club.

      I think the formulation by Roberts on these cases is correct. Only corruption or the appearance of corruption justifies limiting campaign donations under the First Amendment. I suspect this majority will hold judicial donations in large sums from regular litigants a violation, but very little else.

      I also think that unlimited cash for campaigns is a problem for everyone but the media industry. But I don’t know how to divorce the two under the Constitution. What I fear is that all pols running for office will listen only to the donor base when push comes to shove. But as George says, this has been going on for years, and in fact most D.C. pols only listen to their donors now. How else could a plan like Wyden-Bennett get scrapped for the Insurance and Drug Industry Civil Relief Act that no one CHEWED before swallowing?

      Like

  78. How many Republicans in the US House or Senate EVER voted for either RomneyCare or Obamacare? It ain’t Republican that’s for sure.

    The Democratic Party, and those Progressives defending the shit sandwich that they forced down our throats own it lock, stock and barrel.

    I hope they choke, on, it.

    Like

  79. Reid is a deranged, antiamerican embarrassment and should be dragged out of the Capitol and tarred and feathered in fron of the whole country.

    And yet he is the face of the Democrats.

    Like

  80. And in all honesty here, I am probably the only real misogynist. I don’t particularly respect the overwhelming number of women I’ve met. I’m not saying this to brag but in the interest of full disclosure. Just based on what I’ve read from the other posters here that I know are male I’m not getting the impression they share my lack of respect for women.

    Like

  81. “Michigoose, on April 7, 2014 at 4:55 pm said:

    he should dispense with the false civility

    But that would be asking a senator to act like he doesn’t like other senators!”

    He already is. He’s just trying to have it both ways.

    Like

  82. “I’m Now Kevin’s Biatch, on April 7, 2014 at 5:09 pm said:

    And in all honesty here, I am probably the only real misogynist. I don’t particularly respect the overwhelming number of women I’ve met.”

    And we already know what you think of the military officer corps.

    Like

  83. tack, not tact.

    Thank you. Glad someone else said it, so I don’t have to be the heavy. Heh. Now, if it had been a reference to someone’s “dribble,” I could not have held my tongue.

    Like

  84. Since Reid has already said the Kochs are unAmerican, and now he is saying the Rs are bought and paid for by them and should wear their sponsorship insignia, is he saying his R “friends” are unAmerican?

    I wish someone had interrogated him on that question.

    Like

    • I wish the D leadership had the balls to publicly ask him to retract the “un-American” comment.

      On campaign finance reform, as long as it is illegal to collect funds from furriners, I think full disclosure rules would be constitutional.

      Like

  85. What a bizarre thing to say

    No doubt, in your world. Out here both Roe and Casey are seen as allowing women to make decisions. “Allow”???

    Like

    • Lol what kind of woman-hating Neanderthal would say allow?!

      Like

    • Mich:

      Out here both Roe and Casey are seen as allowing women to make decisions.

      And by “out here” you can only mean the world of abortion supporters. What you never seem to understand or acknowledge is that there are plenty of women who oppose abortion, and by your own logic, then, you are not not “supporting” women because you dare to disagree with them.

      I understand why liberal politicians and political activists, when they are making arguments for public consumption, usually via the media, argue from the premise that advocating for legal abortion is “supporting women”, or, put more bluntly, why they pretend that their view is the “women’s” view. They are more likely to gather the support of those who don’t have strong opinions about it, or are not particularly paying attention, or who are not particularly strong independent thinkers and hence easily manipulable, by presenting their side in a rhetorically bullying manner. “If you don’t agree with us, you are against women!!” Again, I get why politicians or activists looking for votes do this.

      What I don’t get is why you do it here. It should be clear at this point that you can’t manipulate us into supporting abortion for fear of being labelled “against women”. It should be equally clear that we have spent a lot of time thinking about the issue, and have developed our own thoughts about it. So why do you adopt this silly bullying tactic? I can only conclude that you actually believe it. Which is really quite remarkable to me, given how manifestly false the proposition is. How you square this notion that to “support women” one must advocate for legal abortion with the fact that millions of women themselves oppose abortion is really quite beyond me.

      The feminist/liberal mind really does have a reasoning process entirely at odds with my own.

      Like

  86. No doubt, in your world. Out here both Roe and Casey are seen as allowing women to make decisions. “Allow”???

    So, now it’s ok to say and believe “If you’re not with me your against me?”

    When did it change?

    Like

    • McWing:

      So, now it’s ok to say and believe “If you’re not with me your against me?”

      Actually I think it is more like “If you are not with me you are against women”.

      Like

  87. “markinaustin, on April 7, 2014 at 5:20 pm said:

    I wish the D leadership had the balls to publicly ask him to retract the “un-American” comment.”

    He is the D leadership. This isn’t a gaffe or a one time heat of the moment comment, but an agreed upon strategy to target the Koch brothers repeatedly to try and recreate the 2012 demonization of Romney.

    Like

    • jnc:

      This isn’t a gaffe or a one time heat of the moment comment, but an agreed upon strategy to target the Koch brothers repeatedly to try and recreate the 2012 demonization of Romney.

      That is exactly correct. And it is being coordinated with their media mouthpieces. Hence the timely exposes about the Kochs in the likes of the NY Times. That this is the party strategy seems completely transparent and obvious to me.

      Like

  88. Man after my own heart!

    Like

  89. Can a belief that life begins at conception be considered reasonable? Not saying one has to agree with it, but could it still be reasonable?

    I’ll give an example, I don’t believe the current Federal restrictions on fully automatic weapons are right. I can see the reasonableness of the argument and can also agree that a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that their fine or even not restrictive enough.

    Like

  90. Only a woman could write this.

    Like

  91. Dang it, now Glenn Reynolds has stolen my point that if our rights are collective now then this should apply to abortion as well. He must read ATiM.

    “Why is birth control not a “collective right,” to be decided for people by the community? After all, your reproductive decisions affect the community, not just you . . . .”

    First, he steals my Second Amendment penumbras argument, now this, and so many in between. No end of these famous pundits taking my material. I need to quit my job and start blogging and punditing.

    Like

  92. Most men’s whole goal in life is to be against women, at least against certain women.

    Like

    • McWing:

      This piece is written by a man who admits he’s epistemically closed.

      Krugman seems desperate to prove qb’s point that it is impossible to parody liberals.

      Like

  93. Meh, it’s only monetized debt.

    Like

  94. the left routinely dismissed anyone who raised the idea that marriage laws might one day be compelled to include gays. Crazy talk! Yeah sure.

    Complete and total strawman. Andrew Sullivan was saying that domestic partnerships were a lame half-step back in 1989.

    The concept of domestic partnership ignores these concerns, indeed directly attacks them, this is a pity, since one of its most important objectives—providing some civil recognition for gay relationships—is a noble cause and one completely compatible with the defense of the family. But the way to go about it is not to undermine straight marriage; it is to legalize old-style marriage for gays.

    Total marriage equality has always been the endgame.

    Like

    • yello:

      Complete and total strawman.

      Funny. Years after civil union laws started cropping up, Sullivan advances what he specifically characterizes as the “conservative” case for gay marriage, while explicitly calling out the gay movement for “ducking” the issue in its advancement of those civil union laws, and somehow this is supposed to refute what I said? Interesting.

      BTW, someone needed to tell Sullivan that “old-style” marriages have always been legal for gays. What he is/was advocating for is not old-style marriage, but rather a re-conception of marriage into something new and entirely different than an old-style marriage.

      Also, you would do well to study and try to understand what a “straw man” actually refers to, which is not a claim that you think is false.

      Total marriage equality has always been the endgame.

      Of course it hasn’t been. The (often unstated) endgame has always been a redefinition of marriage to include same-sex relationships. “Marriage equality” is just another instance of liberal rhetorical bullying, a euphemism designed to frame the debate as one between good and evil. “You are against equality!” But even you don’t really want “total marriage equality”, otherwise you would advocate on behalf of, for example, incestuous marriages.

      Like

  95. So yello, what type of marriage wouldn’t you allow and why?

    Like

  96. People I wouldn’t let marry?

    Humpbert Humpbert and his step-daughter or that tramp Juliet and her molester. But I’m just a pedophobe.

    And not Rick Santorum and his dog since he thinks about that so much.

    Like

  97. The (often unstated) endgame has always been a redefinition of marriage to include same-sex relationships.

    Marriage was much better defined when women were chattel.

    otherwise you would advocate on behalf of, for example, incestuous marriages.

    Rly? You’re going to go there? On the other hand, interbreeding worked so well for the Targaryens and the Windsors.

    Like

    • yello:

      Marriage was much better defined when women were chattel.

      You may not understand what a straw man argument is, but you do know how to make one.

      You’re going to go there?

      You are the one who claims that you want “total marriage equality”. I’m just pointing out what that actually means, and why your claim is a false one. You want the rhetorical benefit of invoking “equality” without owning the actual implications. Typical.

      Like

  98. Total marriage equality has always been the endgame.

    This is so wrong and misleading for so many reasons. Has redefining marriage always been the endgame for some? Sure. For a tiny few. But even in the 90s the dominant view was that complete sexual license was the goal, and marriage per se was itself just part of the stifling, oppressive culture they were trying to overthrow and destroy. Andrew Sullivan was an outlier.

    Tactically, one of the main arguments against state DOMAs and federal DOMA was that they were completely unnecessary, because court-imposed SSM would never sweep the country, expecially via perversion of full faith and credit. Federal DOMA itself was argued to be unnecessary because states already had the right not to enforce a Massachusetts gay marriage. That was a given of the debate back then.

    It should sound familiar, because it is happening again with regard to state RFRAs. What did the mob shriek in response to AZ’s and KS’s bills? It’s completely unnecessary, because they don’t even recognize gay marriage!

    Anyone dumb enough to fall for that this time is too dumb to be part of the discussion. Liberalism advances through deception, evasion, diversion, etc. That has been the course of SSM.

    Like

  99. How fitting that yello would link to the series in which his SSM position was demolished down to the molecular level two years ago.

    Marriage was much better defined when women were chattel.

    Deep thought. Too bad yello still can’t give a coherent definition even while he cheers tearing down the old one.

    Like

  100. Marriage was much better defined when women were chattel.

    As the only misogynist here you might think I’d agree with it but I don’t.

    Humpbert Humpbert and his step-daughter or that tramp Juliet and her molester. But I’m just a pedophobe.
    And not Rick Santorum and his dog since he thinks about that so much.

    So, arbitrariness and emotionalism. What are you, a woman? I expect logic and reasoning from men, I don’t from women. Do better.

    Like

    • I expect logic and reasoning from men, I don’t from women. Do better.

      The issue is mutual consent. Animals and children can’t fully consent. Polyamorists can. Brothers and sisters can but shouldn’t.

      Like

      • yello:

        Brothers and sisters can but shouldn’t.

        And therein lies the contradiction that you seem incapable of seeing, or at least acknowledging. And is why your claim to want “total marriage equality” is an empty rhetorical strategy, not the truth.

        Like

        • And therein lies the contradiction that you seem incapable of seeing, or at least acknowledging.

          I’m always fascinated by how when conservatives talk about gay marriage it always comes down to frustration that they can’t fuck (sorry, Kevin) their sister or their dog. They just want to ride that slippery slope all the way to the bottom.

          Like

        • yello:

          ’m always fascinated by how when conservatives talk about gay marriage it always comes down to frustration that they can’t fuck (sorry, Kevin) their sister or their dog. They just want to ride that slippery slope all the way to the bottom.

          This is obviously false. If you believe it you are too stupid to bother with, and if you don’t you are too dishonest to bother with.

          Like

  101. I disagree about consent. Higher order mammals (I include dogs and cats) most certainly can and do give consent.

    Why shouldn’t sibling and or parents and siblings marry? Why shouldn’t they?

    Like

    • Higher order mammals (I include dogs and cats) most certainly give consent.

      Son of Sam’s dog was actually giving orders.

      Why shouldn’t sibling and or parents and siblings marry?

      It’s tough enough to get kids to clean their room as it is. Throw in sexual dynamics and the dinner table will just become frought with tension all the time.

      Why shouldn’t they?

      You can already name your kid as your heir and power of attorney without having to sleep with them? Just spitballin’.

      Once liberals have implemented their much awaited mandatory abortions for everybody policy we can go ahead and open up the floodgates on all this pent-up incestual demand.

      Like

      • yello:

        You can already name your kid as your heir and power of attorney without having to sleep with them?

        You can already name anyone as your heir and power of attorney without having to sleep with them. Besides which, sleeping with someone is not a requirement of marriage.

        BTW, your routine need to descend into cheap sarcasm betrays the emptiness of your thinking on the issue.

        Like

  102. Yello, you’re “reasons” are completely arbitrary and based on the “ick” factor. What total horsehit.

    And I actually believe that there should be some forced abortions. I bet you do to.

    Your hypocrisy is hilarious. Do you at least own up to it?

    Like

  103. You’re not only a waste of time but offensive and disgusting, yello. And I do mean that personally, and in every other way that might apply.

    Like

  104. And Yello, you’re the one who brought up bestiality and incest. Again, are you even aware of your own hypocrisy I mean, we’re all racists and hypocrites but at least have some self-awareness for fuck’s sake.

    Like

  105. And Yello, you’re the one who brought up bestiality and incest.

    And you get so upset when I don’t answer your leading questions.

    I was taking the anti-position. But feel free to continue to make the case for it. Coprophilia is pretty disgusting too, but health concerns aside, be my guest. Not everything icky should be proscribed but some things should be whether they are icky or not. Angelina Jolie kissing her brother is actually kinda hawt. And have you ever really figured out why the Doublemint twin commercials were so popular?

    we’re all racists and hypocrites but at least have some self-awareness for fuck’s sake.

    Never said I wasn’t. I may even be a misogynist now that I think about it.

    Like

  106. Can a belief that life begins at conception be considered reasonable?

    No.

    Like

    • ‘Goose, are you of the school that life begins when the dog dies and the kids finally leave home?

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-obamacare-has-spawned-a-misguided-debate/2014/04/07/f51d8528-be82-11e3-b574-f8748871856a_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions

      Gerson makes a point worth raising, I think.

      YJ, were I a legislator I would vote to permit SSM because I believe that marriage produces, or is the result of, more stable relationships between sexual cohabitants, where the cohabitants want exclusivity and permanence, and is worthy of recognition as a family unit. I do not think it is a legal “equality” issue.

      I think it differs for me as a putative legislator from incest because incest produces less stable family relationships – confused relationships, if you will. YMMV.

      Again, were I on a court with power to decide the constitutionality, I would rule that a state legislature would have a free hand to define marriage as it determined, absent true 14th A issues, one of which orientation is not [IMHO]. I am guessing the Supremes will ultimately say orientation is a 14th A issue, despite my skepticism. Also, while I would strenuously oppose polygamy as a legislator, I would have a tough time following Reynolds as a Justice. I guess I could rule that under the Supremacy Clause the state could recognize polygamy but the federal government could not be bound, so that a joint tax return, for example, would be limited to claiming income from two.

      Lots of ideas, both bad and good, have no constitutional dimension.

      Like

      • I guess I could rule that under the Supremacy Clause the state could recognize polygamy but the federal government could not be bound, so that a joint tax return, for example, would be limited to claiming income from two.

        I thought about that very same issue this morning. Wouldn’t a polygamous tax return just push them into a higher and higher tax bracket the more wage earning members of the household there were? The marriage penalty is bad enough as it is. Which is another reason I’ve supported gay marriage. Make them pay their fair share.

        As it is, polygamous families game the social services network pretty bad. But I’m not sure legalizing it would change that any.

        Like

      • Mark:

        YJ, were I a legislator I would vote to permit SSM because I believe that marriage produces, or is the result of, more stable relationships between sexual cohabitants, where the cohabitants want exclusivity and permanence…

        Why do you, or why should anyone else, be concerned about the stability of a sexual relationship?

        BTW, if the cohabitants want exclusivity and permanence, they can have it without a government recognized marriage. And if they don’t want it, having a government recognized marriage won’t make it either exclusive or permanent.

        Like

        • Why do you, or why should anyone else, be concerned about the stability of a sexual relationship?

          To me that is a very good question. We either are concerned as legislators about stability of familial relationships or we are not. If not, we may not need to regulate marriage at all. But if we are, if we want to have orphans adopted, if we want non-custodial parents to pay child support, if we do not want family members who could be supported under a familial obligation to be wards of the state, we set out to stabilize these relationships in law. We make Family Codes. We make spouses responsible for the debts of spouses. We make parents responsible for children. I am all for not letting folks off the hook on familial obligations because they don’t do sex the way I do, provided they show an inclination to having or wanting long term stable relationships. At the state level we could construct a whole new family matrix for homosexuals or simply call them married when they want long term stability.

          Or we could let them off the hook, or set up different family rules for them, or give up on the venture of family law altogether. There may be still more options, but I would opt for the easy way in the ledge and I think encouraging stability is good state policy.

          Like

        • Mark:

          To me that is a very good question. We either are concerned as legislators about stability of familial relationships or we are not.

          I think you are conflating sexual relationships with familial relationships. A familial relationship is different from a sexual relationship. I understand the societal benefits of stable familial relationships that involve children. I do not understand the alleged societal benefits of stable sexual relationships, and that is what I am curious about.

          Like

        • Scott, setting the raising of children aside for the moment, every state has spousal support rules as well. These usually make each spouse responsible for all the necessities purchased by either of them. This is a good rule if you are a merchant or a proponent of credit consumerism. My working assumption is that casual sexual relationships need no formal recognition, but that stable cohabitating ones do. Add in that it is within the stable cohabiting relationships that we are likely to approve adoptions and I HAVE NO REASON AS A LEGISLATOR to not call it a marriage.

          I think you mean to be asking me about the sex act in a vacuum. If so, I have no reason to recognize it. I use it as a shorthand here that probably is statistically a likelihood. Asexual or non-sexually engaged roommates are unlikely to want to describe themselves as “married” and don’t put themselves into jointly obligated credit situations without specific consent, as on a lease, nor do they appear at adoption agencies wanting to co-parent. So it is not a matter of principle by any stretch – I use the sexual component as shorthand convenience. And if they want to jointly obligate themselves to anything by contract they are welcome to do so. For those who want the benefits such as they are of marriage, we can surely invest them with the burdens, as well.

          Like

        • Mark:

          Scott, setting the raising of children aside for the moment, every state has spousal support rules as well.

          If you look at the history of those rules, I think you will find that they are very much related to the historical status of women as both bearers and raisers of children. I don’t think it is possible to set the raising of children aside when speaking of families. Children are central to the notion of family. It is even inherent in our language. It is not for nothing that we refer to married people as “couples” not as a family, or that we refer to the decision to have children as “starting a family”.

          My working assumption is that casual sexual relationships need no formal recognition, but that stable cohabitating ones do.

          I know. And I am questioning why you make that assumption. Why should anyone care about recognizing a distinction between two people who are having sex together and consider the arrangement temporary, and two people who are having sex together and think that they will continue to do so forever? I am very serious. I don’t understand why government should concern itself in any way whatsoever with whether or not two people who are having sex are totally committed to each other (until they aren’t) or not.

          I think you mean to be asking me about the sex act in a vacuum.

          Not really. What I am really trying to do is distinguish between relationships that produce children and those that do not. I fully understand why society and the state has an interest in recognizing the status of the former, but I remain bewildered that anyone thinks they have an interest in the latter.

          Edit: “(until they aren’t)”…corked by qb.

          Like

        • Scott, I understand your POV entirely and QB’s in part. If a majority of my constituents did not want to recognize SSM I would look for an alternate structure, as QB suggested, and it would certainly look like the civil union statutes that many states adopted. If a majority wanted to call these relationships SSM I would vote that way. I don’t personally have an investment in the label and do not think it is a constitutional issue. I see a practical difference between the coupled homosexuals living in traditional family roles that my legislature should accommodate for them, for their children whether by adoption or previous heterosexual relationship or whatever, and for the benefit of their creditors. As QB says, it can be constructed without calling it marriage.

          As for JNC, in my model world, marriage would be a church word and registered domestic partner would be a civil phrase, regardless of gender. But I don’t live in my model world and I don’t feel any pressing need to impose it on anyone.

          Like

  107. So, why do you endorse bigotry and seek to deny civil rights to people? Why do you hate love?

    And fascinatingly, why does your mind go immediately to bestiality, incest and shit eating? Wanna include stomping too, that’s some sick shit and you need help. I expect that kind if horrendous perversion from Bernie, that assholes Canadian.

    Seek help.

    Like

  108. “yellojkt, on April 7, 2014 at 10:34 pm said:

    the left routinely dismissed anyone who raised the idea that marriage laws might one day be compelled to include gays. Crazy talk! Yeah sure.

    Complete and total strawman.”

    That was the entire purpose of DOMA, to make it clear that the Democrats regarded gay marriage as crazy talk.

    Like

    • That was the entire purpose of DOMA.

      DOMA was a stop-gap measure to prevent a constitutional amendment. YMMV may vary on how sincere the proponents were. Here is Bill Clinton’s signing statement:

      I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms “marriage” and “spouse”.

      It definitely left open the possibility of states allowing SSM, which is exactly what happened.

      BTW, DADT was another bit of Clintonian triangulation that has not aged well as enlightened statesmanship.

      Like

  109. Thanks Michi, we disagree obviously thought I believe abortion on demand should be legal (if a states citizens agree to it.). I also believe that forced abortions should occur under certain circumstances/instances. Finally, if a male is unwilling to support a woman’s choice to carry her baby to term, the sperm donor, unless they are in some sort of agreed upon legal setup, like marriage or a civil union, should not be obligated to pay child support nor provide financial assistance during the pregnancy.

    I said it before and now I can let my freak flag fly, my support for women is exceedingly qualified.

    Like

  110. You’re not only a waste of time but offensive and disgusting, yello.

    I’m not the one making the case that household pets can give informed consent.

    And I do mean that personally, and in every other way that might apply.

    So noted. You’ve made that pretty clear ever since you tried to get me banned on my very first comment.

    Like

  111. I’m not the one making the case that household pets can give informed consent.

    Fuckin’ A.

    And you’re the fan of shit eatin’! Who’s the real weirdo now?

    Like

  112. I thought about that very same issue this morning. Wouldn’t a polygamous tax return just push them into a higher and higher tax bracket the more wage earning members of the household there were? The marriage penalty is bad enough as it is. Which is another reason I’ve supported gay marriage. Make them pay their fair share.
    As it is, polygamous families game the social services network pretty bad. But I’m not sure legalizing it would change that any.

    Keerist, what a hateful bigot. Ick factor much?

    Like

  113. Clinton and the rest of the Democrats lied on DOMA. That pretty much undermines your point about “Complete and total strawman.”

    Like

  114. All the logical and linguistic contortions rolled out to justify SSM just boil down to rank nihilism every time, as far as I can tell. All they mean is that marriage has no meaning; we can just make it up as we go. So apparently it is just some undefinable emotional bond combined with any shared activity with sex organs that anyone might want to practice, with any other person or group of persons.

    It’s all meaningless.

    Like

    • So apparently it is just some undefinable emotional bond combined with any shared activity with sex organs that anyone might want to practice, with any other person or group of persons.

      Judging by the placement of your reply, you think that is what I said, or necessarily implied.

      Like

  115. Edit: btw this comment is a combination of a reply and a separate comment, which I instead just shoved together. It probably does not flow together, for that reason.

    More or less yes, Mark. Everyone seems to agree (why, I don’t know) that it can’t just be emotional attachment, and it can’t just be some form of sexual gratification. So the idea always comes back to some combination thereof, with a qualifier like committed, permanent, or stable. But that definition is arbitrary and doesn’t withstand examination. People can decide to commit until they don’t feel like it any more. Why should the state care? Adoption is a poor rationale because it is a circular argument. Homosexuals are at no risk of producing children, so the state has no interest in seeing them “married” for that traditional reason. In fact, other than sheer numbers and money, there obviously is no basis to prefer adoption by two gays over adoption by a single person, and if that is the rationale that two are better than one then we also should prefer polyamory and adoption by as many adults as possible. But, no, the argument to allow two gays to “marry” for adoption purposes instead is based on some mystical notion that children are properly raised by two married parents, even while denying that it matters whether both of the two sexes are represented. There is no logical reason to say we should allow two gays to marry because they will adopt children; the argument, rather, assumes its own conlusion.

    The fact of the matter is that the idea of gay marriage comes from profound confusion and produces nothing but confusion. It is incoherent and indefensible.

    I think it should never be forgotten that the real legal struggle has been distilled down to the sole question of whether the word marriage must be applied so that the law treats homosexual and heterosexual relations as the same and indistinguishable. Not for any other financial or legal consequences but solely for the law to say “married” over homosexuals. All other benefits and consequences to which Mark refers can be conferred without marriage.

    So, when it is asked, what does it matter who the law says is married, that question turns right back on the proponents of SSM: why indeed does it matter? Why must our laws adopt your view that your homosexual relationship is the same as my heterosexual one? Is it instrumental? Does how the law defines marriage influence how people behave, or doesn’t it? If so, how? And if so, how then can they simultaneously deny that changing the definition will change anything? Or is it purely about people’s feelings? They want to feel that government approves and treats what they do as equivalent? Why does that desire trump the desire to have the law recognize marriage as uniquely organic to heterosexual relationships? Why isn’t my offense at equating them more valid than the offense others take at not equating them?

    Like

  116. Behind all of the debate lies the hard, cold anthropological, historical, social fact that marriage was always based on the conjugal act and relationship in which it literally is impossible for homosexuals to engage together.

    But in the new world where nothing means anything and reality is subservient to fantasy, we can just pretend that a relationship based on mutual gratification through … other means … is the same thing.

    Half the world has lost its powers of rational thought. I really don’t know how else to explain how nuts the argument is.

    Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: