It’s a little early for those of us on the Left Coast, but I hope you can tune in :)
Related Posts
-
France: Gee, This Libya Thing Is Complicated
Pat_S | April 6, 2011
14 Comments | Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks, Tammy, for the civil discussion, that is, not making it all about Perez Hilton but not leaving him out either to take the scolding or the shame he needs but has managed to resist and avoid. Your Clinton pollster opponent though left with the need to slap the TV. Pouty little boy, he was.
Excellent Tammy….you make cogent arguements that just may move people to your ideas.
The problem with the gay nazis is they turn off folks like me to any thought of the gay cause. I was so angry at how they have been attacking that young girl (I have granddaughters her age)..I was moving radically away from any gay agenda. This morning, you brought back to reality…..thanks for that…
This is not the first time I’ve seen that Tammy was not given the time to finish her statement without constant interruption from the other guest. That must be very frustrating.
I thought my kid was smoking crack when he said the “other” Tammy was on TV this morning. What a nice surprise. Its so nice to actually SEE her talking. We never get enough of that. I would have looked like a dish rag at that hour but Tammy looked fab. She was classy and correct as usual.
On another note, I just finished ‘The New American Revolution’. Although it was written in 2001…. it could have been written last week. I recommend ALL conservatives read this book. I am rarely impressed. I am very careful about who I give my money and my time to. I consider that book a Conservative’s manual for sanity and survival.
Just how does a dweeb with an, “No it is not, is not, is not” argument aqcuire the skill of fillibuster? Practice in front of a mirror with a radio turned up full blast?
Tammy, I wish you could’ve made the point about Christianity on FOX this morning. For many years now I’ve believed that the gay movement/marriage issue is all about “getting back” at Christians for daring to disagree with them. I don’t believe they really care about marriage at all—it’s now become more than that.
Yes, marriage is a religious issue, but it’s also an issue of the state because it is the basic building block of society. The first organization to ever exist. Adam and Eve were the first corportation. From that organization comes everything. The condition of the marriage determines the condition of the family, and so on. An unstable marriage and family produces unstable children and ultimately an unstable society.
For such an evil, right-wing network, Fox certainly invites a lot of gay commentators to openly debate their opinions in a respectable, if not downright friendly forum.
Great segment as always, Tammy.
Thank you for your perspective Tammy. I totally agree. Civil unions should more properly be the legal term of what the bond created between two people, regardless of their gender and/or sexual preference.
Marriage is indeed a religious based structure not unlike a Christening which has no legal structure, yet it has a socially binding impact upon the families and friends and congregations of which the christened child is a member.
I would further propose that we further simply the Civil Union stuff to go beyond even the current basis to merely be a legal structure with which two adults and their children, shared or individually can take advantage of the health insurance of the one who they deem has the better coverage and that optionally they can use this structure for purposes of beneficiary designation for Life Insurance and retirement funds too. Treating common property and such currently the way our system does for what is usually called a marriage.
Separation of Church and State is a concept originally offered to keep government out of religion, not religion out of government. There is a careful distinction. Ones beliefs should by necessity inform how you vote and the platform upon which you attempt to be elected. Whereas a government must not be allowed to judge what religions or lack thereof can be practiced by individuals.
Interesting debate. As all participants noted, it’s hard to pin down what it’s really all about…and that’s understandable, because it connects to so many things…state authority, religion, social convention, etc. At one point, Whitman objected to civil unions because nobody knows what they are, whereas everyone knows what marriage is. And I see why he says that, but it’s obviously wrong…if everyone knew what marriage was, we wouldn’t be having this debate.
In fact, these debates lose sight of the true purpose of marriage, which is to be a framework by which this generation moves on to the next generation. Marriage is about mother and father and children. In the narcissism and egotism of this era, we’ve forgotten that. We think it’s about ME, and MY rights and what *I* get. And that’s just not right. If you’re not raising the next generation, you’re just playing house. And that’s okay; in a free society, you’re allowed to do that. Maybe you’re working and living a productive life, and for some reason (not necessarily sexual orientation) you don’t want to or can’t raise a family. That’s reasonable. What’s not reasonable is to redefine the cultural standard for the family. The society at large has a vital interest in reinforcing the structure that will nurture the children. And children need a mother and a father who will commit to be there for the early years of their lives. It’s the children that are paying the price for our self-centered hedonism.
Gay marriage is only the tip of the iceberg. The family is broken in a terrible way. How many children are born out of wedlock or find themselves in broken homes? That’s our problem, and that’s what deserves our focus. This push towards gay marriage as a “civil right” is merely another step in the wrong direction. It’s a small step, but a high-profile one.
Go into a Christian church and you won’t hear them railing about the terrible homos and the like. You’ll hear them pleading for the general sanctity of marriage, for the sake of the family and the children. You’ll hear them lamenting the high divorce rate, even among the faithful. We need to understand that this isn’t a “gay” issue, and in fact it’s got nothing to do with gay.
Clearly lost on Mr Whittman was Tammy’s point about the continued intolerance from the radical Left on the situation that Ms.California found herself in answering that question. The Left would do themselfs a great service by advancing
their arguments with people like our Tammy who have differing opinions on important issues but
don’t need to resort to name calling and shout downs as their primary weapon. The rational Right
wins again, thanks Tammy.
The most important point of all is being lost in the above discussions…Tammy looks great in her glasses.
Nicely done, Tammy. You make me PROUD!
I have a coworker who strongly believes in gay marriage, and even he says Hilton is wrong to make those comments. He agrees with me that Miss California has the right to speak her mind and she did the right thing by answering truthfully. Frankly, civil union or gay marriage, whatever the case, I thin the federal government should stay out of it; it’s a state’s rights issue.
Tammy really makes me proud to know I listen to her. BTW, Nauert after dissing her a few months ago on the FOX…was moved off the Fox afternoon rotation…Yea! She was poison to John Gibson…that’s another story. I just really like Tammy’s show.