The party of inclusion
From the Daily Show, the open party, delegates at the DNC talk about how inclusive they are;
Category: 2012 election
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Get On Board
Enter your email address below to receive updates each time we publish new content.
Wow. And I thought narrow-minded idiots were gross guys who shave their heads and wear nasty tatts. Makes you think, doesn’t it?
Thanks Jonn. I’m feeling MUCH better now.
Excellent trolling, Mr. Stewart. Lol.
Well done. Heh…….
And they’re so well-disguised. They walk among us, and vote, and breed. . . . .
Now I’m confoozed! I’m not a red-neck but I own guns. I’m not a tea-partier but tend to lean center right. I’m not evangelical but I believe. Can I be a democRAT?
NO! An emphatic NO, YatYas! You’re NORMAL!
Whew, thank you Ex-PH2!!! I thought I was gonna have to give myself a lobotomy and register as a democRAT! I really feel like I’m just a normal guy that tried to do the best for my kids and is trying to do the best for my grandkids. I ain’t asking for handouts or subsidies, I’m just against ratbastages who have no desire to work but want to be supported on the public dime.
Jonn, please, please tell me there is going some wonderfully scathing commentary on Choo Choo Joe’s crocodile tears while talking about veterans in his speech.
I wonder if this should be considered another example of “inclusion”:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/anti-christian-hate-speech-spews-from-the-palm-beach-democratic-chair/
Yes, he’s now on “leave of absence” for his remarks. That may be true, but it is also irrelevant. As a senior party official, such attitudes are incompatible with his office.
Ya’ll are a bunch of racists!!!! /insipid
@Hondo: We have been told by the leftist democrat machine that any comment or “misspeaking” by any republican is indicative of the whole. So, we can say, then, without qualification; that the comments of these all inclusive democrats is indicative of the entire party?
I mean; they nailed it on us Tea Party types i.e. we aren’t very good at science, except those of us that work in engineering, or that are/were astronauts (what do those knuckledraggers know about science, eh?), that are doctors and nurses, and especially those that believe in a higher being. I mean, come on, we can’t have any references to some G-d thingy in our party of inclusion, ya know.
BTW: If the term “marriage” is a religious annotation; why are the gays fighting so hard for a label that is religious, even though their party doesn’t want religion in their platform?
@OT – “If the term “marriage” is a religious annotation; why are the gays fighting so hard for a label that is religious, even though their party doesn’t want religion in their platform?”
On the flip side, if the term “marriage” is a religous connotation, why are opponents of gay marriage demanding that government regulate who that connotation can apply to?
CI: c’mon, guy. It’s obvious OT’s whole point was to point out the hypocrisy of on one hand claiming “marriage” as a religious “annotation” while actually advocating change in the legal status of marriage vice it’s religious status.
Anyone who cares to do a bit of research knows that marriage has both legal (civil law) and religious definitions. The state provides the former, which is consistent throughout the jurisdiction of the state. Individual religions/philosophers/gurus/shamans/whatevers provide the latter, which may vary from religion to religion and between authorities. Gay marriage advocates are arguing for a change in the legal definition of marriage, not religious.
There are already religions/philosophies/gurus/shamans/whatevers that will perform gay marriage ceremonies – so from a religious perspective, gay couples can already marry. However, those religious ceremonies alone don’t confer legal status on a marriage that doesn’t conform to the current legal definition of marriage within the jurisdiction in question. Recognition of such status is what is advocates for gay marriage are trying to force nationwide – IMO primarily for economic reasons.
Economic reasons? Did someone not send them them memo about “HALF!” (sorry Eddie Murphy) Does the phrase “marriage penalty” not ring a bell with these clowns?
@Hondo – I got his point, but the hypocrisy lies in both camps. Opposition to gay marriage – or even civil unions – rests primarily on the religious definition of marriage [which is ironic, given polygamy in the bible].
Okay, I just saw Jon Stewart do an actual good piece… I think I have to go shoot myself now because the world is ending.
(This is written jokingly for all those Democrats. I did not mean this literally.)
@16: Opposition to, or affirmation of, gay marriage comes from the church. When the government wants to use the religious term, which speaks to man and woman (whether polygamy plays a role isn’t the issue we are talking about, but I understand the need to open up the discussion wider in order to conflate the subject and take it in a different direction), for those that aren’t, that is the point of contention. It isn’t about civil unions, because we, that oppose using the term marriage for it, agree that the term civil union is appropriate for it, so you are wrong there.
There is no hypocrisy from our side on this. Of course, I don’t know that I speak for anyone else, since I have never claimed to be a religious zealot and my actions have given rise to challenge that label whenever it is used on me.
BTW: Why is the government getting involved in a religious term anyway; since we are supposed to pride ourselves on the seperation of church and state?
Don’t want none of you beer drinkin’, gun totin’ West Virginny hillbillies at our convention, no siree!
OT – The government at all levels uses the term ‘marriage’ to depict the recognized relationship between two people.
The Romney campaign is in opposition to civil unions.
“Why is the government getting involved in a religious term anyway; since we are supposed to pride ourselves on the seperation of church and state?”
You’d have to ask the churches and religious groups; they are the ones demanding that the government regulate the act and the label.
CI
Polygamy was in the Old Testament, New Testament superceeds when it says specifically a man and a woman. It was also used as a form of charity. Widows were married into families because they had no legal status being single and it was done to ensure they were taken care of…
Actually, CI, you are wrong when you say, “You’d have to ask the churches and religious groups; they are the ones demanding that the government regulate the act and the label.”
I certainly could ask the churches and religious groups, but they would most likely respond with blank stares and confused looks on their faces because they are NOT the ones demanding that the the government regulate the act and the label. Am pretty sure that churches and religious groups are happy leaving things as they have historically been.
It is a few members of society who are demading that the government change the historical definitions. The churches and religious groups are simply responding to those demands. Am pretty sure that churches abd religious groups would rather not have the discussion at all.
I’m not making a stand on polygamy; I just found it mildly ironic…along with many other portions of levitical law that get used and/or ignored when convenient for arguments sake.
OWB – I disagree completely. There is an entire industry built around religious opposition to gay marriage and civil unions.
CI, if you cannot see the difference between responding to something vs initiating something, well, I don’t have the capacity to explain it to you.
It is very like if I shoot someone breaking into my home. While I am not keen on the idea of taking the life of another, I will defend myself when threatened. Someone else made the decision to initiate activity to which I would reasonably respond with force – I didn’t go out looking for someone to shoot.
Marriage is a legal state, always has been. If two people set up a household, start a family and do other related things for the purpose of being a family, they are in a common law marriage.
Religion has historically controlled marriage, and its byproduct, divorse. Besides polygamy being in the Bible, there is also the story of Ruth and Naomi, the two lesbian lovers, which is conveniently forgotten by anti-gay people.
So when two people want to have a ceremony, civil or religious, that gives both of them legal status as a couple, it does have economic and legal parameters. If you live in a state that only allows family members to visit a dying relative, and you’re in a gay couple (Florida law), you are not allowed to visit your dying partner. The are probably other states that have similar laws.
I personally don’t give a crap, but this constant harping about it and the in-your-face stuff from both sides of the coin is seriously annoying.
And childish.
If you know you’re straight, what the hell are you worried about?
No one has ever answered that question when I’ve asked it.
@19 Joe, so many stereotypes in one sentence, oh the irony.
@5. True, but they’re easy to ID. They’re the ones driving a Volt or a Prius.
@26: You don’t have to be anti-gay in order to be against gay “marriage”. As I have stated, there is a difference between government and church actions. Also, we should all be concerned about it since it is the beginning of other, less desirable future actions. Take, for instance, the government’s push to force the Catholic Church to provide contraceptives as part of their insurance package for their employees. Do you honestly think that the government won’t push churches to perform, or allow, gay marriage in their church, even if it goes against the tenets of the denomination? That is what will be coming down the pipe, if we are going to start dismissing the concerns of the churches. The democrat shunning of Christianity was firmly on display in Charlotte this week. The democrats have stopped being nuanced and have started being in your face.
As for your second to last sentence: If you’re gay and you know it; what’s wrong with calling it a civil union? The fact is; they want it to be called marriage. Are they harmed in some way by it being called a civil union versus marriage?
@OT – “Are they harmed in some way by it being called a civil union versus marriage?”
This is a very good point…..are opponents of gay marriage harmed by calling it marriage?
@26 I’m not sure which Ruth and Naomi you’re referring to as lesbian lovers, but in the book of Ruth, Ruth was Naomi’s daughter-in-law. Naomi helped to get Ruth married off to Boaz, a wealthy relative. If you’d like to quote chapter and verse on the “lesbian lover” part, I’d be quite interested to read it.
@30: I think I covered that, as well as everyone else. If you’re not a religious person, that’s fine, however, to mock the traditional definition of the term as prescribed by religion, then i can say; yeah, it does harm.
@OT – My religious preference has little to do with the concept of denying priveleges and liberties to a group of citizens based solely on a religous belief [speaking of marriage – not unions]. The problem lies in the legal concept of harm.
I don’t consider myself to be mocking religion when I say that the harm you describe is a case of hurt feelings at worst. Akin to the argument that gay marriage will ‘destroy/harm/invalidate’ my marriage.
Holy crap … did you hear what they just called me? That was funny … John Stewart and crew very funny … and a bit scary all at the same time!
@33: Well, since your take on it is different from mine and there is no way that either one of us is going to get anywhere with it and we aren’t going to change each others opinion; let’s just say we can agree to disagree on this.
@OT – Roger that; not trying to poke the fire…I’m just forever interested in this issue and how each side presents their case.
Cheers
I will just speak to Romney and civil unions… yes he opposes them. However, as he viewed it a States’ Rights issue, he did state quite clearly that rights could and should be conveyed to domestic partnerships with no distinction on the genders involved… In other words, even couples who were not married should have been entitled to the same civil rights accorded to married couples. Not all straight couples get married either, and they too could not benefit from rights that gays were seeking to obtain.
There was no need in his mind to change the historical nature of marriage, when what was being asked for could be achieved easily through an extension of rights to non married couples. gay or heterosexual.
The problem with “marriage” is that we allowed churches to run the program.
We don’t buy a house with an escrow account and deed setup by our pastor, we don’t setup a corporation through the bishop’s office, and we don’t let the mullahs determine whether or not we can legally stone our daughters to death for being raped….at least not yet.
Since marriage is actually a legal contract between two people similar to any other legal contract that divides property/responsibility and distribution of assets upon dissolution it’s a legal issue. I am not sure how the government views it differently or why.
From a selfish hetero standpoint, if we are allowing gay people to adopt kids or allowing gay couples to have a child it makes sense to me from a societal standpoint to encourage marriage because upon the dissolution of marriage I don’t want to be paying child support to yet another group of abandoned bastard children. Let gays experience the joys of coming home to find your belongings in the driveway and a police officer explaining you need to get a lawyer before you can get the rest of your sh1t….gays can’t be any worse at marriage than the rest of us.
This could come very quickly under the heading of “gay people, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it”….because I sure as hell won’t be sympathetic to any gays whining about divorce…you’ve been warned gay people make sure you really want this marriage bullsh1t before you sign up for some.
Of course like everyone else that is my opinion only and your mileage will most certainly vary…
@ 38 …. WHAT? I just Googled (AlGore.net) Veritas Omnia Vincit –> truth conquers all things.
Marriage –> in a church –> in the presnece of God!
All others are unions, civil, agreements, contracts, or otherwise.
THIS IS THE POINT.
Marriage and its definition is scared.
Marriage is between on man and one woman.
OK … I will climb down out of the tree now.
I don’t care what two people do in the privacy of their bedroom, their state, courthouse, mayor’s office, or where ever they may want to get UNIONED.
But don’t go changing what a marriage is!
Thank you very much for your continued support!
@MCPO — you said ‘marriage is scared’. Did you mean ‘sacred’?
In regard to the “party of inclusion”, there is a disturbing piece of news that the DoJ is pursuing, or trying to pursue, legal action against the Gallup Poll because Gallup’s numbers don’t match the WH numbers.
Here is the link:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/06/justice-dept-gallup-lawsuit-came-after-axelrod-criticized-pollsters/
This is getting nastier and nastier.
@39 With respect good sir, I understand the idea that in a church setting marriage is sacred to the members of that church. However the government performs marriage in drive through settings, as a legal contract that uses the same name as the sacred one in the church. Las Vegas government does a substantial business in marriage, you used to be able to get your marriage license (which the government must issue) at 2 am after a night of drinking and gambling.
It’s clear the government doesn’t treat marriage the same as a church. I agree with the right of churches to refuse to perform a gay marriage, however the government should perform a gay marriage with the same sanctity it offers heteros who show up drunk in Vegas, and then recognize that marriage as binding to every state the same as hetero marriage. If two drunk, degenerate gamblers can get a quickie marriage in Vegas and Kentucky is forced to recognize that marriage as sacrosanct under the law, you are hard pressed to explain why two homosexuals using a justice of the peace in a respectful ceremony at the courthouse in Vermont can’t get the same respect under the law.
I am certain we will remain at odds on this issue, and I appreciate your exiting the tree….
PH2, if it was my first marriage “scared” is far more appropriate than sacred…but that’s another story entirely.
Your link is extremely disturbing, but not surprising to me. Petty political toadies are always using power that they don’t actually possess to pressure the weaker members of the press or society who are vocal in their dissent.
@ 41 …. I think we do agree.
EX PH 2 .. I am dixlectics!
VOV, it is a very disturbing story, but it’s also like a blinking light on your dashboard: something is wrong, stop and check it out. It’s a warning. It boggles my mind that anyone is that desperate. It’s like Nixon’s dirty tricks all over again.
Pinto, I’m sorry that I didn’t clarify that I was being sarcastic. I apologize for the misunderstanding, but I was indeed being sarcastic. It’s the part about ‘whither thou goest, there shall I go, too. Whither thou liest, there shall I lie, too.’
@45 Thanks for the clarification — I can be as dense as a post, sometimes.
That link disturbed me, too. The sooner we replace that bunch, the better. And DoJ has begun to worry me more than the WH does.
In speaking to the point of this post, ie: the big tent people…I love the old lady stating they welcome everyone. Well everyone except for, and when she is pressed she finally gets what she has been asked….it’s a revealing moment for her. Perhaps she will share that with her fellow exclusionistas.
Thanks to Claymore I have been reading the DU far more than I should be…it is amazing to me what passes for acceptable speech from them, but not from others…I guess that is what happens when you sleep through civics class.
I just read the Daily Caller article Ex-PH2 referenced.
Disturbing, YES.
Surprizing, NO.
Outcome, the legitimacy of DoJ continues to wain.
The largest issue for me is having the feds involved in defining marriage at all. If each of the states wants to define it differently, they are free to do so according to my understanding of the Constitution.
Oh, well. Quite like a whole lotta stuff that folks have just allowed the feds to meddle in which they really have no right to do.
@49 While the states are free to define it for themselves with respect to heteros each state has to respect the marriages of another state. If cheap, drunken weddings in Vegas were not considered valid elsewhere I think you would be right on the money. Once a legal contract is issued and referenced as law in every other state it appears to me that to deny one group access is inappropriate at best, and reprehensible at worst…
To me if you take the word gay out of any of these gay rights questions and substitute the word black, and that makes the law seem anachronistic and wrong you know what the right thing to do would be. It would be reprehensible to assume blacks shouldn’t be allowed to marry, that makes the resolution to the issue easy for me because I do not believe gay is a choice any more than black is a choice.
I think that is the real defining issue, if you believe that gay is merely a lifestyle choice instead of a natural condition that can’t be avoided by the recipient any more than can eye or skin color I can see why you might struggle with this issue. If we are truly a nation that separates church and state the right to marry and share property, credit scores, and access to a dying a loved one should depend less on our religious definition and more on our legal definition of that social contract.
I should probably stop beating this dead horse now, my apologies to all.