The Political Inquirer

MSNBC and the New York Times are asking this question, “After [the] ruling, [is] gay marriage an issue again?” This is of course referring to the ruling here in California that took place yesterday and has already been briefly discussed here on this blog.

What do the writers and readers of The Political Inquirer think? Does the gay marriage issue steal attention from other issues like the state of economy or the Iraq war? Will this lead conservative religious voters to focus in on one specific issue during the general election and other elections? And how will the Democratic and Republican parties handle this issue? How will the presidential candidates handle this issue?

James Ostrowski has surprised me this political season by predicting almost every single thing that has happened to a ‘T’. When he said McCain would be the nominee in late December, I told him he was a fool. I take back my accusation publicly now that McCain has secured it. He has been favorable to Obama this season but he really thinks Clinton has the better chance now:

Note to liberals: She has more experience; he’s slightly to the left, but not much difference on policy really. A tossup.

She has a better chance against McCain though many are in denial on this including right-wing Hillary haters and left-wing Obama lovers.

The race is a statistical dead heat and anyone who thinks otherwise hasn’t studied the numbers carefully.

Obama is ahead in delegates because the delegate selection rules are arbitrary and stupid. E.g., O got more delegates in at least two states where H got more votes!

The nomination will be decided by the super delegates and there is no compelling legal, logical, political or moral reason why they should vote for Obama.

From their own perspective, they should vote for Hillary because she has the better chance in November.

Read more »

1. POLYGAMY
2. GROUP MARRIAGES
3. MARRIAGE BETWEEN RELATIVES

Polygamy: A relationship between consenting adults with long religious and historical significance (unlike gay marriage).  The ‘child marriages’ in places like Eldorado are illegal aberrations that cannot smear the actual concept.

Group marriages: My favorite science fiction (’The Moon is a Harsh Mistress’ by Heinlein) accurately describes the potential of group marriages (there a shortage of women led to arrangements like 5 wives, 14 husbands, all interchangable) for being stable arrangements with the right mindset.  Again consenting adults that should not be discriminated against.

Marrying within the family: originally rightfully banned by church doctrine for the problems of inbreeding.  However, we know other problems of breeding now.  My son has a serious genetic condition as a mutation (NF2) which is autosomal dominant and gets worse with every generation.  Should the State ban my son from marrying based on genetic inadvisability of procreating?  Especially if such people agree not to have children (other than adoption and/or surrogates, like gay couples must)?  If not, what prevents an adult niece from marrying an uncle (I have family where those are in the same age ranges)?  If nothing, what about an adult son marrying his widowed mother? (Our cultural disgust for that not withstanding; we’re talking the law here.) 

I would be interested in hearing the arguments, because I see nothing in the tone of the ruling in California that would preclude any of these for anything other than poltical expediency in their unacceptability to most (and lack of an active lobby supporting them).  Numbers involved do not a right make, do they? 

A Gray Zone scenario, for certain.

With the U.S. military thinly by a host of deployments - Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, and Korea to name a few - will the waning Bush administration risk another costly military conflict? Months ago, I would have said no way. The administration has been bogged down trying to defend the cost of our continued presence in Iraq for the past four years, both in lives and national debt. Unrest over the war may have even contributed to the lost House and Senate seats in the midterm elections and to a regression of the President’s popularity ratings.

Yet nowadays the tide seems to be turning, not for our struggle in Iraq, but for a decision to attack in Iran. During a speech in Israel yesterday, President Bush condemned the Middle Eastern nation and associated them with the Nazi regime of World War 2. Read more »

Is it even a big deal? I’m sick of hearing those on the Left cry that all homosexuals should have a “right to marry” as much as I am hearing Christians on the Right act like it is the most important issue in politics today (seconded only to our destruction of all things Muslim with big bombs). There are some things we need to recognize here related to this subject:

1. Leftists: No one has a “right” to get married. Each state can define its own “rights” and laws governing marriage.
2. Christian Right: Gay marriage isn’t “undoing” the family. If it is, then that is your fault for not teaching people to be good fathers and mothers. Government cannot ban gay marriage and make things any more right than if the Left gets it legalized. Your failure to keep people moral through religious teaching is shining through when you resort to government to try to make up for your mistakes.

There should not even be laws governing marriage as far as I am concerned. Such laws were originally put in place by people who wanted a law dictating that interracial couples could not marry, if I remember correctly.

A leftist and a rightist write Lew:

Writes Matthew Dailey: ” “I’m a twenty-one year-old living in northern California. About a year ago, I was the most leftist of the left, a product of my high school education I’m ashamed to say. But when Ron Paul entered the national political scene last summer, I started to pay attention. Since then, my views on economic freedom have vastly changed. Now I’m a daily visitor to lewrockwell.com and the blog. Thank you for giving me a place to feel sane.”

Writes Charles Krblich II: “Last year (coming from the most fascist of the right), I never would have agreed with Matthew Dailey — the man who wrote you. Now however, I find that a common ground exists between us. Not only has Ron Paul changed his world view, but he has also changed mine, and LRC.com is where I get to deluge myself with this perfectly sane and rational world view. As Ron Paul says himself in his book THE REVOLUTION, ‘And despite their philosophical differences in some areas, these folks typically found, to their surprise, that they rather liked each other.’”

It just goes to show that there are some elements of freedom on both the right and the left that need to be combined. True liberty is being shunned by a “divide and conquer” method.

Enough said.

President George W. Bush openly criticized Senator Barack Obama, which is a peak into what this campaign will look like. In 2000, George W. Bush undermined his “friend” John McCain by starting those nasty rumors in South Carolina. Today, he is undermining his “friend” John McCain once again by giving him no choice but to defend this inept President and his inept policies. A cynic might suggest Bush is deliberately sabotaging his “friend.” Read more »

Edwards endorsed Obama today if you didn’t get a chance to read the news. Headline on Drudge Report’s site: “The Ticket?” with a picture of Obama and Edwards. I am positive Obama will pick a white male if he intends on winning, but I’m not seeing Edwards as a strong point.

Market forces are predicting a war in Iran, I suspect. Speculators would obviously bid up the price of oil if they think a major conflict will come soon. Philip Giraldi at the American Conservative:

There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants.  The camp that will be targeted is one of several located near Tehran.  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was the only senior official urging delay in taking any offensive action.  The decision to go ahead with plans to attack Iran is the direct result of concerns being expressed over the deteriorating situation in Lebanon, where Iranian ally Hezbollah appears to have gained the upper hand against government forces and might be able to dominate the fractious political situation.

Read more »

US News and World Report has information that McCain is likely to pick Huckabee for the vice presidency. Here are the three reasons McCain should pick Huckabee, according to the article:

1) He is a great campaigner and communicator who could both shore up support in the South among social conservatives (Huckabee is a former Baptist minister) and appeal to working-class voters in the critical “Big 10″ states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio.

2) As any pollster knows, voters search for candidates who “care about people like me,” and Huckabee would probably score a lot higher on that quality than millionaire investor Mitt Romney. Plus, given all the turmoil on Wall Street, 2008 would seem to be a bad year to pick a former investment banker for veep.

3) Economic conservatives and supply-siders may balk, but the threat of four years of Obamanomics and higher investment, income, and corporate taxes might be enough to keep them on board.

All three reasons are the reasons I refuse to vote for any sort of McCain or Huckabee ticket.

Rob Malley is an analyst at the Washington, D.C. based International Crisis Group, specializing in the Israeli-Arab conflict.  The International Crisis Group mission statement is as follows. 

“The International Crisis Group (Crisis Group) is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organisation, with some 145 staff members on five continents, working through field-based analysis and high-level advocacy to prevent and resolve deadly conflict.”

Rob Malley is also a middle East policy adviser to Barak Obama.  Barak Obama has stated that as president he would not meet with Hamas.  I have to ask, what is the problem? 

If you are against the Iraq War but you enlist the support of a retired Iraqi war general is that a conflict of interest, or a credible source of information?  If you are against legalizing homosexual marriage and also have a homosexual working on your staff, are you a hypocrite or an open minded person?  If you have a great grandfather who supported the Nazi’s in WWII, are you yourself an Anti-Semitic?  If you have a preacher who expresses views that you have stated you disagree with does that make you a liar because you never severed the  relationship with the person previously, or are you someone who can listen and discern for yourself what you believe?  If you talk to your child about the dangers of using drugs and underage drinking even though you yourself have engaged in such activities, does that make you a hypocrite or a credible source of information through personal experience?

Finally, if you have a Middle East policy adviser who met with extremist groups, does that make you a terrorist sympathiser yourself or just a wise leader who positions advisers around him with real experience and not personal acquaintances who blindly support your pie in the sky ideals?