Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
PM Carpenter, your host. Email: pmcarp at mchsi dot com.
Screenshot 2024-05-27 at 11.05.06 AM


  • ***


« The GOP, Donald Trump, and an alternative ending to "Shutter Island" | Main | Obergefell v. Hodges: A Solomonic decision »

June 26, 2015


Anne J

What a difference a decade makes! Before the election of 2004, this was not an issue that was on the radar of most Americans. But thanks to the tireless efforts of George W. Bush, Karl Rove and other right wingers of the time campaigning on a promise to make sure a group of people already not able to legally marry could never, ever, ever, get married we may not have seen this day a mere eleven years later. A short term victory for the right, became a long term victory for America.

Ken Hoop

Yeah, pm, if trends keep going like they are, people like you are going to have to explain why working class populists
shouldn't equate fashionable gender-cultural (multicultural) neolib political control with continuing economic/wage stagnation; congrats also on the tpp/obama "i will reform nafta, i've never been a free trader fakery.
Oh, yeah, and the continuing recklessness of the m-i complex and its pampered little albatross wag the dogger.


Libertarianism is a refuge from the need to balance freedom and responsibility, fight and flight or tradition and progress. As such it's a non- or anti-philosophy. If it has any positive recommendations to improve humanity they're unrecognizable. It seems only to point to what's wrong with conservatism or liberalism. There might be value in that, but how can it actually govern? The impulse to keep government or any other institution (see religion and the Enlightenment) out of people's private affairs is a liberal one only.



Peter G

This has been such a wonderful week. I don't often have such a wonderful justification for spending so much time at Redstate reading posts and perusing the always magnificently idiotic comments that follow. For consecutive posts on the gay marriage ruling are to be found there and all I can say is wow! Hot stuff indeed. You will hardly be surprised to learn that the Supreme Court decision is completely wrong and fails to recognize the inherent right of the majority to suppress minorities through legislative action. The proper position of the Court is obviously, to rubber stamp such actions.

Many deep thinkers over there believe this must inevitably lead to the acceptance of polygamous marriages or worse, incest. I drily note that incest is, in fact, permitted in some states, (first cousin marriages) but not in the majority of states where it is defined as incest and not permitted.


The next step is the legalization of man on dog. Bwaaa ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

David & Son of Duff

I'll thank you not to disparage the great love that exists between me and my dog. I love him and he loves me and its our human and animal right to be married.

Also, I trust our courageous host, backed up by Peter, Bob and the Dark Avenger, will now immediately begin a public clamour against any mosque that fails to condone homosexual marriage. Well, I mean, it's easy-peasy to kick off a riot outside some church where they teach their followers to love their enemies. Trying the same thing against a mosque would take real guts.

Please let me and all your readers know when the campaign begins - I can't wait!

Peter G

No David we won't. We don't have to do that because there is no legal requirement for any religious body to perform a gay wedding if they don't want to perform one. That particular consequence of the Supreme Court decision exists only in the minds of nut bars. And just so you know you won't be required to be gay either.


Social forces within the religion won't be changing that much within our presumed lifetimes, and I don't see it as my personal concern, so shaping Muslim dogma won't be on my list. However, I hope you and Thatcher, or whatever you've named him, will continue to share your love for many flea-free years.

David & Son of Duff

So you can promise that there will be no future actions taken against churches who refuse to hold homosexual marriages.

If you believe that you'll believe anything!

Peter G

Hey Bob, do you remember when governmental discrimination on the basis of gender became illegal? Remember how the Catholic church and all the other churches in the US that would not ordain women as priests or minsters were forced to do so? Neither do I.

Peter G

You mean like they forced the Catholic church to ordain women? That your legal theory also? Women's suffrage can't be risked because they might insist on becoming priests. Basically your argument comes down to the fact that people you don't like MUST be denied a right you have in order to prevent them from exercising a right no one has. You know that kind of stupidity is why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did. Your imaginary injuries do not justify depriving anyone of any right.


I don't remember the government forcing women into the priesthood either, but more churches have women behind the pulpit, and some parishioners have moved to churches they feel more comfortable in. You might have noticed a recently developed schism in the Episcopalian church to address gay marriages. You're trying just a bit too hard, Dave.

David & Son of Duff

In you usual excitable manner, Peter, you leap to entirely wrong conclusions:

"people you don't like"

Where have I ever written anything that could be construed as showing me disliking homosexuals? Quotations, please! I like/dislike homosexuals in exactly the same proportion that I like/dislike heterosexuals.

One thing that will be a relief, if it is true, is a report in the NYT to the effect that the homosexual 'community' (daft word!) will gradually wither away - it has already begun! - as it realises that it has gained most of its demands so there is no need for all that 'separate culture' stuff. This, of course, will upset the Alinsky-trained agitators, including the one in the White House, who have led the 'movement' thus far and found it a useful stick with which to beat Christians into silence.

Peter G

I don't believe you are thinking very clearly about this David as your lament about nuns and school funding demonstrates. For if your logic held the dreaded Muslims could establish both schools and hospitals, demand public funding as the Christian schools you cited do AND demand Sharia law govern them. I'll bet your commitment to religious liberty doesn't go that far does it?

God has had quite a lot of time to eliminate the gays but keeps making more of them. Very Strange. Equally strange is the joy you evidently find in the disappearance of a community you have nothing at all against. You can't help yourself can you?

Peter G

Btw, did you notice how black people didn't disappear after the civil rights act?

The comments to this entry are closed.