Traditionalism Rocks, Neo-liberalism Fails Again

The Left loves to hate Karl Rove. But like him, or not - he does know politics, almost as much as Barone knows election demographics. I pointed this out in  post or comment yesterday.

Republicans received a hard shot in Mississippi. Greg Davis (for whom I campaigned and who was a well-qualified candidate) narrowly lost a special congressional election in a district President George W. Bush carried four years ago with 62% of the vote. Democrats pulled off the win by smartly nominating a conservative, Travis Childers, from a rural swing part of the district who disavowed Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and hit Mr. Davis from the right.

Putting aside the words conservative and liberal for a moment, what much of America supports is traditionalism. And that ain't Barack Obama or the current Democrat elite. While the GOP is imploding, the neo-liberals (who are really anything but liberal) that comprise the Left, better be careful about over-estimating their draw.

Americans reject the Left more than they do the far-Right. Recent election results may spell trouble for a currently misguided GOP. But they still speak volumes in support of a traditional America.

And that is much more akin to genuine conservative-thinking than that of the new libs we see in the blogosphere. Unfortunately, we haven't seen much genuine conservatism from the GOP in a while either. And there-in lies their problem.

Comments

[jharp]

"Greg Davis (for whom I campaigned and who was a well-qualified candidate) narrowly lost a special congressional election"

He lost by EIGHT points. A real squeaker!

"Many House GOP operatives are privately predicting that the party could easily lose up to 20 seats this fall," according to The Politico.

"Combined with the 30 seats that the GOP lost in 2006, that would leave the party facing a 70-vote deficit against Democrats in the House -- a state of powerlessness reminiscent of Republicans' long wilderness years in the 1960s and '70s."

CQ Politics notes the Republican House leadership team "met in crisis mode" yesterday after losing a third special election this year.

[Fred Beloit]

This is another "tradition" type of issue, although it might just as well be called a common-sense type of issue:

"There are arguments to be made both for and against immigration, but you can't be in favor of mass unskilled immigration and then pledge to fight the "war on poverty". It's like spooning out a bathtub with a thimble while leaving the faucets running." By Mark Steyn here: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWE1YzlhZjIyMTk5MWI4NzM0ODEyYWI0MTM3MmY0ZDM=

The point made by a Robert Samuelson is that if a county keeps adding large numbers of unskilled workers willing to work for lower wages that normal, that country's poor working class will continuously be added to, thus skewing the numbers to look as if the middle class were disappearing. Isn't that what has been happening here?

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

Yes, this loss of a long-time GOP stronghold, coupled with 2 others in the past 10 days, despite attempts by the GOP to drag down the candidates with the specter of scary black fellows, and despite the personal involvement of Cheney and Huckleberry, is CLEARLY a good sign for conservatives!!!

[Fred Beloit]

Posted from another RWV thread:

"Congressional approval started off the year at a depressed 23%, then dipped to 21% in March and 20% in April, before reaching the current record-tying low. The 76% currently disapproving of Congress is just shy of the record-high 78% in March 1992.

Democrats Not Backing Congress

One reason Congress is doing so poorly in the court of public opinion is that rank-and-file Democrats are providing no support cushion for the Democratic-controlled institution. In fact, Democrats are about as likely to approve of Congress as are Republicans: 20% of Republicans approve, versus 16% of Democrats."

[Fred Beloit]

Could be voters just want to kick out all incumbents. Sure hope so.

[Worst President Ever]

The generic vote for congress is Democrat 48% / Republican 34%. Think November Landslide.

Turdblossom took Bush from 90+ approval to around 30% approval today. Some political genius.

Republicans lost in Mississippi in a blood-red district. They brought in all their heavy hitters and spend a ton of money to pull the campaign out and still lost by 8 points.

That's three losses in a row in what should have been strong Republican districts.

Bush, in the words of Republican Tom Davis, has ruined the Republican brand.

[jharp]

Republicans moving left.

"Gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California, the state Supreme Court said today... ...Today’s ruling by the Republican-dominated court"

[jharp]

Republicans moving left.

"Gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California, the state Supreme Court said today... ...Today’s ruling by the Republican-dominated court"

[seekeronos]

"--- Gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California, the state Supreme Court said today... ---"

Linkie, please?

Although I can't say that I am surprised. California has been kinda off in lefty-loony land for several decades now. With the San Francisco liberals oozing their slimy sort of wickedness and perversion across the board from the school boards on up to the state house, it has become a cancerous node on the politics of the rest of the state.

It is a shame that California is turning to the ways of Sodom and Gomorrah, and not just by way of the gay marriage thing either. God's terrible wrath shall be poured out, and I shudder to think of the fact that San Francisco/San Andreas fault is long overdue for a massive earthquake.

[jharp]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_05/013733.php

seeker,

Don't worry. It does not mean you have to marry someone of the same sex.

It only gives equal rights for those who choose to do so.

You do believe in equal rights for all, don't you?

[Worst President Ever]

Give the holier than thou, moralistic BS a break Seek. You have no more knowledge of the what God thinks - if he / she even exists - than I do.

[Fred Beloit]

Dem in Mississippi race ran on issues way to the right of Hannity.

http://www.hannity.com/

[jharp]

Just thinking about how the wingnuts keep harping that the democrats are electing conservative democrats and then lo and behold the REPUBLICAN dominated supreme court makes a leftist decision.

Not only is conservatism not taking hold with democrats but it is losing it's hold on republicans.

I'm very happy with the way things are unfolding.

Maybe there is a God.

[jharp]

Fred,

Your link is to Hannity's home page and I found nothing on what you speak of.

Take a look at the winners home page on the issues. Expanding S CHIP?

I didn't know that was a conservative position.

http://www.childersforcongress.com/tc_issues.html

[IslamoLlama]

Oh noes! If Karly Rove says it, it must be true!

"-- Democrats pulled off the win by smartly nominating a conservative, Travis Childers, from a rural swing part of the district who disavowed Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and hit Mr. Davis from the right. --"

Show us where, smartass Where did Childers disavow Barack Obama? When did he speak ill of Nancy Pelosi? On what position was he more conservative than Mr. Davis?

Karly loves to talk the talk, but he never has the facts to back it up. He's all hat, no cattle. Childers is anti-war and he's pro-health care via SCHIP. Just check the website.
http://www.childersforcongress.com/tc_issues.html

Looks like another punditry fail for Dan. Failing to even be bothered to read up on the issues, he's one of the fleeting few that continue to buy into Rove's bullshit. Better luck next time.

"-- seeker,

Don't worry. It does not mean you have to marry someone of the same sex. --"

YET!

We'll be seeing the Mandatory Gay Marriage Act of 2013. Just give it time.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- God's terrible wrath shall be poured out, and I shudder to think of the fact that San Francisco/San Andreas fault is long overdue for a massive earthquake. --"

Lols. Silly Seek. God punishes gays with Hurricanes. He punishes atheists with Earthquakes. Check the news, the earthquakes are in the atheist hell holes of China and Illinois. Since California is home to a bunch of mega-churches, the only thing they have to worry about is Ted Haggard taking up residence too near by.

[syn]

Amazing how some freak out after learning that Democrats are voting Conservative; must really twist their bended brains.

The GOP may be losing the Conservative base however, the Democrat Party is winning by running Conservatives.

If this keeps up Congress will be overwhelmed with Conservatives from the Democrat Party, which means No Gay Marriage, No Gun Control, more School vouchers, Less taxation and quite possibly, Roe vs Wade is overturned.

Now this is too funny.

[templar knight]

Dan, I think it will be best for conservatives that Republicans lose big in November. That way the Democrats will have their shot to solve our problems, and I say, give them a chance, and don't give them the excuse that the Republicans in Congress are preventing them from doing what they were elected to do. Let them get all the credit, if what they do works, or let them get all the blame if it fails.

And the Republican Party will be open for people who are interested in showing the old guard the door, by the seat of their pants, if neccessary. It's time for a new, improved Republican Party, one built with reformers who will banish the cronyism and rinoism inherent in today's party. With young people like the Iraq veterans who are currently seeking House seats.

[jharp]

templar,

Good well thought out post and I'm 100% with you.

I do believe in the saying that power corrupts and I'd rather see a sane republican opposition to keep the dems in line. But it seems the GOP is going to be pretty powerless for some time.

How was the weekend in the big city?

[seekeronos]

"--- Give the holier than thou, moralistic BS a break Seek. You have no more knowledge of the what God thinks - if he / she even exists - than I do. ---"

I can say that I have a very good idea of what God thinks - He tells us in His infallible, Holy Word.

And I can tell you that in His prefect, preserved Word, that marriage is defined as a man and his wife, not a couple of men or a couple of women or some sort of other bizarre polyamorous or bestial or pedophilic/ephebophilic relationship.

According to God's word, two men do not have a "right" to be married.

for jharp:
"--- Don't worry. It does not mean you have to marry someone of the same sex.

It only gives equal rights for those who choose to do so.

You do believe in equal rights for all, don't you? ---"

As I said, there are constitutional rights, which are derived from God's Laws and natural laws, and gay marriage isn't one of them.

What this wicked and patently evil decision by the CA Supreme Court does is open the door to all the rest of the sodomite agenda that is being pushed upon our children, and that fool Schwarzenegger decided to let the activist courts decide a matter that should have been settled by the legislature.

The battle may not be over yet, as the only recourse left to the remaining God-fearing Californians will be to push for a amendment to their state's constitution, assuming that they cannot convince their legislature to remove their court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Deo Vindice!

[syn]

jharp

I'm not sure you quite understand the implications of a Conservative-dominate Democrat Party.

But that's okay you will the day you find out the Democrat Party has left the Left behind; and then, where will you be?

[syn]

"As I said, there are constitutional rights, which are derived from God's Laws and natural laws, and gay marriage isn't one of them."

More importantly, what sane person in America wants the 'appointed not elected' Supreme Court, the 9th court or any other court legislating our laws; I mean one would think this over-reaching unchecked power would at least scare the bejeebies out of everyone.

[syn]

"You have no more knowledge of the what God thinks - if he / she even exists - than I do."

Actually I saw God just today while swimming, divine and loving as usual.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Actually I saw God just today while swimming, divine and loving as usual. --"

Wow. And they accuse me of getting high.
You win this round, syn. Just promise you'll pass the peace pipe my way.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- More importantly, what sane person in America wants the 'appointed not elected' Supreme Court, the 9th court or any other court legislating our laws; I mean one would think this over-reaching unchecked power would at least scare the bejeebies out of everyone. --"

Yeah, we can't have a single branch of government exercising unchecked powers by interpreting the Constitution any way they see fit.

*cough*Fourthbranch*cough*
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1636435,00.html

But yeah, it would be really great if so-called conservatives had given a crap about overreaching government powers and a complete void of oversight some seven years back. Too bad "OH SHITS! TEH TERR'RSTS!" left them crapping their shorts in fear.

Now - according to Jose Padilla rules - you can be hauled off to jail, held indefinitely, tortured into signing a false confession, and "disappeared" into CIA secret prisons. Just imagine what an unchecked SCOTUS could do. If I've got to choose between repeated drownings while someone takes a car battery to my testicles and knowing some couple in California got gay married, bring on the high voltage and the water boards. Because blah blah small government blah blah low taxes blah blah states' rights blah blah Jesus.

I'm liking this "Change you deserve" slogan. I think it fits, somehow.

[jharp]

"I'm not sure you quite understand the implications of a Conservative-dominate Democrat Party."

Oh yes I do. And we've got a long, long way to go. And I don't see it happening.

Conservatism, as policy, fails. Witness the GOP the past 7 years. The voters eventually see the light and vote their sorry asses out of office.

Conservatism is not taking over the democratic party.

Or do you think Obama and Clinton are two conservative candidates for President?

[jharp]

seek,

"As I said, there are constitutional rights, which are derived from God's Laws and natural laws, and gay marriage isn't one of them."

Quite the contrary, the California Supreme Court just made it law today.

And the damdest thing is they didn't even mention God laws. They did however cite the constitution and confirmed that equal rights for all means exactly that, equal rights for all.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

What do you suppose the founders were thinking when they passed this. The very amendment to our Constitution.

[ET]

"I'm not sure you quite understand the implications of a Conservative-dominate Democrat Party."

jharp and the rest of the lefties don't understand the implications of a liberal democrat president, either. Here is one take.

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=Y2NmNDFmM2FjMjNhZDY5NDVkY2MxNTg4ZGIxMzc5ODY=

[jharp]

ET,

"jharp and the rest of the lefties don't understand the implications of a liberal democrat president, either."

Oh yes, I do.

And I'm very much looking forward to it.

How about you? You looking for 4 more years of the failed policies of your conservative hero, Mr. 28% himself, George Bush.

Please share with me all of the success stories from your great conservatives that have been running things.

Please do. Iraq invasion? Osama bin ladens capture? Deficit spending? National debt? Katrina? Oil prices? Home foreclosures? Corporate welfare? Record devaluation of the dollar?

Yeah, ET, I can't wait for a Liberal president.

[jharp]

Oh, and I almost forgot.

Ignored the warnings and allowed the worst terrorist attack in U.S history, killing 3,000 Americans.

Yeah, GWB has been some success.

[tally]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21YF7ggCG6g

[Worst President Ever]

"I can say that I have a very good idea of what God thinks - He tells us in His infallible, Holy Word."

Really? And where exactly does his "infallible, Holy Word" come from?

[jharp]

"And where exactly does his "infallible, Holy Word" come from?"

According to Mitt Romney somewhere in Missouri. Or was it Upstate New York?

It's all so confusing.

[ET]

harpie you are a broken record. Your post proves your ignorance...believing one man causes all of the calamity you see in the world. You are a simpleton.

Iraq? approved by congress, all of whom had the same NIE report the administration did. Oh, and we are winning, by the way, despite the best efforts of the dems to sabotage the effort.

bin Laden? He is totally marginalized. We still need to kill him though. I suppose as soon as we have a dem in the white house he will surrender out of overwhelming fear.

Deficit spending? uh, we are fighting a war.

National debt? declining.

Katrina? inept and corrupt state democrat politicians. oh, and mother nature.

Oil prices? Home foreclosures? Corporate welfare? Record devaluation of the dollar? If you think these events were caused by GW Bush, you are useless. If you think electing a democrat will resolve these issues, you are delusional.

Further proof of your ignorance is your continued use of public opinion poll to slam bush when your beloved congress ranks even lower (18%). Why haven't all of these problems been fixed by Pelosi and Reid by now. I thought they promised to end the war. Oops. I forgot. Dems will say anything they think idiots like you want to hear, then maintain the status quo once in office. When will you learn?

[Worst President Ever]

1. The national debt goes up unless you have a budget surplus. The last surplus was under Clinton. Bush has blown the budget out of the water almost doubling it.

2. He cut taxes DURING a war. That should tell you the Republican's claim to fiscal responsibility is utter BS.

3. Do you understand how congress works? It takes a 2/3s majority to get anything through the Senate. The Dems don't have that, though they may after this election.

4. It's Bush's War. He's the president - the buck stops with him. He and his cronies from Colin's speech to the Un, to Condi's mushroom cloud imagery pushed it.

[jharp]

ET,

Other than your "the buck stops anywhere but with the Presidents office" utter nonsense you failed to address the republican controlled legislature and W's accomplishments.

Please share with me all of the success stories from your great conservatives that have been running things.

[templar knight]

"How was the weekend in the big city?"

Damn fine outing. Enjoyed a Broadway show, ate at Peter Luger's steakhouse, took in a Mets game, and checked out some new widescreens. Pretty uneventful, but did see some of Al's folks acting up.

I was so inspired by the steak that I decided to attend the World Championship Steak Cookoff this weekend at Magnolia, Ar. I haven't commented very much since I got back Monday because we're trying to get our cookers ready for the trip to Magnolia. And get caught up with work.

Did I miss anything while I was gone?

[jharp]

ET, "National debt? declining."

WPE, "1. The national debt goes up unless you have a budget surplus. The last surplus was under Clinton. Bush has blown the budget out of the water almost doubling it."

Whatta ya think? WPE. Is he a liar or he really that much in the fog?

I'm betting he doesn't know the difference between debt/deficits.

ET?

[jharp]

templar,

You didn't miss a thing. Same old stuff.

Ate at Peter Lugers years ago. It's about as good as it gets.

To me the plate of onions and tomatoes is tops.

Is it still cash only?

Can't handle sitting through the shows. I know it's my loss but I just don't get it. I used to fall asleep.

Have fun at the the steak cookoff. I'm getting ready for a major fishing trip to the upper peninsula of Michigan.

I plan on fishing as long as it takes to get at least one BIG salmon and then cold smoke it.

[seekeronos]

"---
seek,

"As I said, there are constitutional rights, which are derived from God's Laws and natural laws, and gay marriage isn't one of them."

Quite the contrary, the California Supreme Court just made it law today.

And the d****st thing is they didn't even mention God laws. They did however cite the constitution and confirmed that equal rights for all means exactly that, equal rights for all.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

What do you suppose the founders were thinking when they passed this. The very amendment to our Constitution.
---"

Take care not to conflate state constitutions with the federal constitution.

In CA's case, several renegade state supreme court justices have legislated (this is itself a travesty) that two gay men or lesbian women may marry.

However, God's laws are higher still than either state or federal laws; when nations make laws that contravene God, those states incur the wrath of the very God who ordained those states to exist. And the Most High and Sovereign God may move to judge this states, especially ones that knew of His perfect laws, with strong judgments.

Man's judgment is pitifully lacking, woefully stupid, and morally bankrupt, when it departs from God's Perfect Law.

Don't be too surprised when (not "if") the crime rates skyrocket, the housing markets collapse even further, and the children of these unholy "marriages" mature only to rebel and sink into even greater depravity than their godless parents, and earthquakes and pestilence beset them. Behold, those judges may have sewn the wind, but they shall assuredly reap the whirlwind unless they repent.

And if there are a majority of Californians left in that accursed state (it is accursed for taking God's law and turning it inside out) are indeed servants of the Lord Jesus, then they will fast, pray, and litigate and seek political remedy against those renegade judges, and move through an amendment to overturn their wretched judgment.

And what goes for California goes for this nation as well.

Sadly, with CA as the trend setter for most of this nation, it is likely only a matter of time before sodomite marriage becomes the law of this land, if not other wicked and debauched practices such as bestiality and fertility cults (albeit packaged in a "New Age" format, but still the same garbage as when Canaanites first copulated with goats, and prostituted young children for their demonic "gods" -- if the Lord should tarry for another generation or two, it will not at all surprise me if we fall that far that fast). I expect that in the not too distant future, Christians will once again be actively persecuted and killed for teaching and insisting upon the truth of God's Law.

By embracing our own "secular humanist" sense of "reason" above God's Word, we have turned aside from God into the sin of the godless Red Chinese, and shall receive dreadful terrors upon this nation of the likes the Mohammedans could only dream of inflicting on us.

It is God who has established this nation (among so many others), and through the obedience and the grace and wisdom given to the Founding Fathers, this nation was established for the freedom of religion for GOD fearing people. Ultimately, it is He who is sovereign, and to Him to Whom we must all - sinner and saved sinner alike - must give an account to.

And to answer WPE (or whoever) about God's Word, He spoke it, and moved men to write His words down, which He preserves through His eternal power.

No magic plates or what-have-you. And like it or not, His Word upholds this universe.

"-----
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
(Hebrews 1:1-3)
-----"

Unbelievers and the godless may reject it at their eternal peril.

"----- And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:15, KJV) -----"

[Worst President Ever]

My guess is he doesn't know the difference between national debt and the deficit. Just as he doesn't understand how Congress works.

So Seek, you believe this literally?:

Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Here are the REAL debt numbers:
US National Debt on 1/20/2001: 5,728,195,796,181.57
US National Debt on 5/14/2008: 9,364,554,673,553.01

[seekeronos]

"--- So Seek, you believe this literally?:

Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. ---"

Sounds like Leviticus, no, Exodus 31:14 ... gotta thank God for Bible Gateway.

And yes, I believe it has literal import for the Christian: if a Christian fails to set aside the sabbath day (I won't quibble on the SDA/Baptist argument on Saturday vs. Sunday here) as a day to rest and spend time honouring the Lord, worshiping Him and feeding from His Word, then yes, your spiritual life will suffer for it.

But that is not what you asked, so here goes a longer explanation, which I pray you receive:

The exact literal death sentence was, if you are taking it from the context of the passage in Exodus, is directed at the "children of Israel":

"----- Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. (Exodus 31:13, KJV) ----"

This is a distinction which carries the literal death sentence for Israelites who failed to comply with it. It is specifically directed at the Covenant People, the literal descendants of the twelve sons of Israel, particularly for those whom God redeemed through the Passover and brought out of Egypt, and for their descendants throughout the lifetime of that nation (which ceased to exist in AD 70, but the covenant that Exodus 31 refers to was completed with Christ's death and resurrection).

Likewise, the Old Testament proscriptions on homosexuality, bestiality, eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics (applied only to the Levite priesthood) had literal death sentences that were active during the Covenant period.

Today, these have application as follows - homosexuality and bestiality (and sexual immorality in general) should be behaviours that Christians are dead to, that is, considered abominable, and forsaken. The proscription of eating shellfish and avoiding other non-"kosher" foods never applied to Gentile believers, and for Jewish believers, was lifted as Jesus revealed to Simon Peter (in Acts 10:9-16). The mixed fabrics item has no application today to either Jew or Gentile, as there is no continual priesthood keeping up the ancient temple sacrifices.

Now I *will* tell you that the effects of God's Laws are still in force.

Sleeping around with all kinds of girls and boys will increase your likelihood of contracting and STD, and potentially shorten your life and reduce your quality of life.

Eating nothing but pork and shrimp is not really very healthy at all (shrimp and pigs are by nature scavengers and loaded down with parasites)

Mixing polyester and cotton is just a bad fashion idea (ok, I made tossed that in here as a lark).

Concerning sexual immorality, God has a lot more to say about that than He does about food or clothes; when a people give themselves to wanton sexual immorality, societal decay ensues. Boundaries are transgressed, and crime unfolds, especially "crimes of passion".

This is why God wants us, when we do marry, to marry man to woman, and to STAY married and committed to each other.

God's laws are GOOD, and are intended for OUR good.

[Islamollama]

"-- In CA's case, several renegade state supreme court justices have legislated (this is itself a travesty) that two gay men or lesbian women may marry. --"

Actually, they did no such thing. The laws for marriage have been on the California State books since the state was founded. The state did not grant marriage licenses to gay couples, but until recently gay couples hadn't been applying for them.

The question before the California SC was whether gays could enter into the same legally binding contract as straight people. The California SC determined that there was nothing inherent within the state constitution that would prohibit a same-sex couple from entering into said contract and that there was no compelling interest for the state to limit rights of same-sex couples in this manner.

In short, the court took a very libertarian slant and decreed that individual rights would prevail over the Republican nanny-state.

Many true conservatives cheered this decision.

"-- Don't be too surprised when (not "if") the crime rates skyrocket, the housing markets collapse even further, and the children of these unholy "marriages" mature only to rebel and sink into even greater depravity than their godless parents, and earthquakes and pestilence beset them. Behold, those judges may have sewn the wind, but they shall assuredly reap the whirlwind unless they repent. --"

We've gone through this before Seek. God punishes the gh3y with hurricanes, not earthquakes. You keep on bringing up earthquakes like you know what you are talking about. Earthquakes are clearly a punishment for atheism. As the simple act of homosexuality doesn't strip you of your religion identity - any more than the simple act of lying or stealing or what have you - this decision by the SC would not subject California to earthquakes. Earthquakes would only occur if the number of atheists rose to levels seen in China or Illinois.

So unless the California coast is wracked by a massive Typhon inside the next year, we can safely conclude that God isn't mad about this in the least. Also, should the stock markets rise, the housing crisis relent, and/or crime rates sink, we should take this as an indication that God has showered his blessings upon gay unions and we should encourage - nay, mandate - more same sex coupling.

That's why I'm writing my Congressman now to encourage the Mandatory Gay Sex Act of 2009. I believe that by mandating all men, upon reaching their 18th birthday, have their anal passages penetrated by a 250 lb biker dude named Burt, we will bring about record low unemployment and cut the national deficit in half. Should the signs become clear and God bestow his blessing, I'll be expecting your full support on this Seek. Because it's the right thing to do.

[seekeronos]

"--- That's why I'm writing my Congressman now to encourage the Mandatory Gay Sex Act of 2009. I believe that by mandating all men, upon reaching their 18th birthday, have their anal passages penetrated by a 250 lb biker dude named Burt... ---"

I'll assume, of course, that you will want this to be retroactive, and that you'll be phoning up your "friend" Burt to do your honours up the instant it passes, right?

(Sorry mate, but you walked right into that one!)

[Lala]

From SF Gate - in part - history of the marriage laws in California

"In addition, he said, the current state law, enacted in 1977 and reaffirmed by the voters in 2000, discriminates against same-sex couples on the basis of their sexual orientation - discrimination that the court, for the first time, put in the same legal category as racial or gender bias.

The legal case dates back to February 2004, when Newsom ordered the city clerk to start issuing marriage licenses to couples regardless of their gender, saying he doubted the constitutionality of the state marriage law.

The state's high court ordered a halt a month later, after the nearly 4,000 same-sex weddings had been performed at City Hall. The court annulled the marriages in August 2004, ruling that Newsom lacked authority to defy the state law. But it did not rule on the validity of the law itself and said it would await proceedings in lower courts."

[seekeronos]

I'll not nitpick the distinction between "judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench" from those justices' duty to review laws in light of their state's constitution. In a saner and more Godly time, this would never need to have been codified in the state constitution because it would never have been a matter for contention.

Therefore these supposed "republican" justices, RINOs apparently, have decided to pander to the left with their ruling, which effective legislates that gay marriages are the law, where before there had been ambiguity, if not room to legally withhold marriage licenses from LGBT couples.

It may have been very "libertarian" and "constitutionally correct" for them to rule thus, but it was done stupidly and contrary to God's law. Ideally, the state should not even have to legislate on this; it should be perfectly sensible that LGBT marriage is far outside the norm for Americans (where LGBT couples are far less prevalent than 2% of the population).

So now, the race begins to make an amendment that will be invincible even to the scrutiny of wicked and corrupt judges.

And God is not constrained in what manner of judgments He can bring upon a nation or a state that He chooses to discipline.

Although, if He _DID_ bring a freak typhoon to CA, I'd certainly see that as proof positive that He was displeased.

However, with the abundance of potential for a high-Richter scale quake due to his San Francisco, I believe that God would likely use that venue despite the atheist count.

Moreover, to go with your silly meme, if there is such a lack of committed Christians that they cannot find the 650,000+ signatures needed to get a state constitutional amendment to properly define marriage (one man, one woman), then I'd say you would likely have your atheist count up.

It is possible that the CA Christians, through prayer and fasting, may have the opportune to undo the harm these wicked judges have done.

[jharp]

seek,

"In a saner and more Godly time"

I'm curious as to when this "saner and more Godly time" you refer to actually was.

[seekeronos]

Any time from about 1612 to around 1962.

[jharp]

"Any time from about 1612 to around 1962."

I always suspected it but now am 100% convinced. You are not for real.

You saying same sex marriage is more wicked than slavery?

Executing those accused of being witches?

Germ warfare against native Americans?

Lynchings?

The list is too long to go on.

If your Bible teaches what you are touting here I want nothing to do with it.

[ET]

---My guess is he doesn't know the difference between national debt and the deficit.

WPE...you are right. I transposed my response. My bad. The budget deficit is declining, not the national debt.

My overall point is simple. To blame bush for all that is bad and predict miraculous solutions from the dems is moronic. You and harpo engage in that thinking 24/7.

The dems campaigned on the promise to end the war in Iraq, then did no such thing. Quite the opposite. When confronted with this fact, you and harpie resort to "blame republicans, they have a majority." That doesn't nullify the point that dems made promises they new they could never keep -- never intended to keep. yet you keep falling for their hyperbole. When will you learn.

Pelosi lied, people died.