TCTI: Too Crazy Too Ignore
 Dave Ross
gaymarriage3el2012.jpg
There certainly have been hints that the traditional lines were moving in terms of gay marriage. (AP Photo/file)

Gay marriage becomes a conservative cause

BY Dave Ross  on March 1, 2013 @ 3:02 pm (Updated: 3:10 pm - 3/1/13 )

Somethin's happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear.

There certainly have been hints that the traditional lines were moving.

Vice President Cheney: "People ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish."

Colin Powell: "They are as stable a family as my family is."

And after Lady Gaga yelled at him: "Obama, are you listening?"

Even Barack Obama endorsed gay marriage.

And this week, with the US Supreme Court about to hear arguments on California Proposition 8, which overturned gay marriage - a group of more than 130 prominent Republicans signed a brief urging the court to allow California and any other state the right to grant gay couples a federally-recognized marriage.

Among the signers - former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, and Meg Whitman, who endorsed prop 8 when she ran for California governor, but now quotes Britain's conservative prime minister David Cameron who said: 'Don't support gay marriage despite being a conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a conservative.'"

Then came a group of 278 corporate CEOs, saying prohibiting gay marriage needlessly complicates employee benefit plans, hurts morale, and hurts business.

And then late yesterday, another signature appeared: Clint Eastwood.

And if Clint Eastwood is signing on to gay marriage, the justices have the ask themselves. Do I feel lucky?

Dave Ross, KIRO Radio Talk Show Host
Dave Ross is co-host of The Ross & Burbank Show on KIRO Radio (weekdays 9-Noon) and never too far from the spotlight.
More Dave Ross

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (96)


  • Add A Comment

  • sportsguru wrote...
    So what was they suppose to do Dave?
    March 1, 2013 3:48 pm

    Stick to there conservative morals and conservative religious ethics that there base SUPPOSEDLY live by,lol,ha,ha,ha,.

    Let's get one thing clear, conservative are not and in life give a sh!!!tt about conservative values, they only faux anger over gays, illegal immigrants and fiscal responsibilities in order to rile up there base to stay in power so they can put there hands in there bases pockets and live the elite lifestyle fitting of a king and/or queen.

    The church is no different, they say how bad it is to be gay to grab the suckers money and then find the nearest boy and in fact are probably living in the closet as gays themselves.

    This is all a game to them and WE the people are the game pieces to the game, I am no longer playing and officially after the supreme court decision to shoot down the will of the people with the Washington initiative will probably never cast another ballot again, if I do, it will only be to defeat something because I no longer believe in our political system.

    I am done with the American political system, it is one big joke and I am tire of being the brunt of the joke.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • O-town listener wrote...
    and liberals are no better..
    March 1, 2013 4:23 pm
    think those politicians really care about the old, the sick, education, equal rights, etc. that they claim to care about? Nope. Politicians are politicians and everyone picks a side and sticks to the party lines to suck money out of whatever money is on that side.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    sportsguru
    March 1, 2013 5:00 pm
    I am done with the American political system, it is one big joke and I am tire of being the brunt of the joke.

    It is all a scam. I tend to view things in very different ways on most topics, but in the pointlessness of the electoral process as well as the uselessness of government I can agree that we're just chattel to the governing class.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • soo purletiv wrote...
    Morals don't change
    March 1, 2013 8:44 pm
    Squirmy politicians always change.

    As I have stated previously; they are like water and electricity. They follow the path of least resistance.

    Oh, and also like cockroaches; they run for cover whenever light shines upon them...

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @soo purlative...
    March 2, 2013 9:20 am
    Dude - morals do change. Used to be immoral for a black man to marry a white woman. Now, it's not. Used to be totally moral (and justified by some with the bible) to own slaves. Now it's not. Need any more proof?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • soo purletiv wrote...
    @ FormerMarineSgt
    March 2, 2013 10:24 am
    You're confusing basic morals with man-made restrictive laws based on ignorance.

    For me, no more proof is necessary, but thanks for the offer...

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @soo purletiv
    March 3, 2013 9:32 am
    Dude - failed attempt at re-defining morality. Here's one part of the definition of the word: "good by accepted standards: good or right, when judged by the standards of the average person or society at large". Gee - I do seem to remember the writings of people like Lincoln saying that slavery was immoral... therefore at one time it had to be completely within the acceptable morals of the day. And then it wasn't. Proof that morals change. Just because you don't want it to happen, doesn't mean it doesn't.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cameron wrote...
    Poly Marriage, the next step toward real equality...right Dave?
    March 2, 2013 5:53 am
    Consenting Adults, should not be told by the Government who they can love and who they can marry. Or can they? Why is it that Dave and his Democrat friends left out the equal rights of Consenting Adults in groups of more than two to marry? Shouldn't it be a Liberal cause not to exclude poly marriages Dave? Why do Democrats who hold the power in this State, denie the right to marry to the Poly community?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @cameron...
    March 2, 2013 6:43 am
    I don't know your particular true opinion on this issue, so I won't direct my response to you particularly. However, -many- who complain that liberals and gay rights supporters aren't supporting polygamy use that as an accusation of hidden hypocracy against anyone who dares support gay rights / gay marriage. The pathetic part is that -MOST- of the folks who raise this issue like this do not want polygamy OR gay marriage. They merely use this red herring as an attack to 'prove' how wrong gay rights / marriage supporters are. My personal opinion on polygamy? Anyone who wants it can do the hard work that every other group has done to get thier 'thing they want' to be accepted.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Keitho wrote...
    May be a politicain cause
    March 2, 2013 6:42 am
    But it is not a conservative cause. Any conservative that supports the federal gevernment supporting gay marriage is no true conservative. A moral conservative would oppose gay marriage altogether. I can see a conservative leaving the decision to the states as those rights not granted to the federal government are supposed to be left to the states. When your morals are swayed by the cause of the day or the current trends, you are not a true conservative. Thats a fence sitting, cant make up my mind liberal.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @keitho
    March 2, 2013 7:28 am
    Unlike what you clearly think, there are many degrees of conservatism. Many versions so to speak. Same goes with liberals. No one version of Conservatives owns the definition. There are religous conservatives, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. There are many versions of each of these. To claim that you can't be a conservative simply because they don't follow your particular version of it is about as stupid as saying that all liberals hate America, or that everyone to the left of the extreme right is a far left liberal.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cameron wrote...
    Interesting perspective from a Former Democrat 5th district Candidate Sarge
    March 2, 2013 6:52 am
    Why should any particular minority group have to fight for their civil rights? The Democrats who pushed for marriage equality appear to be selective as to who is "equal enough" to be represented in their Legislation. My personal belief is that if you are going to change the rights and definitions associated with marriage in the State, it should be applicable to all of it's citizens who meet the capable of meeting the mental competency, non-related, consenting adults standards. How is anyone elses relationship remotely impacted by the number of people involved in a marriage? It is simple bias and hypocracy to denie Poly marriage in Washington State, why not be the leaders in the United States and set the example for the rest of the country?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @cameron
    March 2, 2013 7:25 am
    Like any true hater, Cameron needs to insult/be stupid and personally attack those who dare respond to his comments with anything other than a robotic 'you are right'... But nonetheless, his comment about 'why should any minority group have to fight for thier civil rights?' ignores reality of real world social interactions (which apparently is a weak point for him) - Whenever there is social interaction, less popular groups will be ignored or worse. For these groups to get the attention they need for thier cause means that they have to actually do something FOR thier cause instead of whining about it being unfair. And the logical extension of your arguement Cameron is: Why is ANY form of marriage not just immediately legal because people want gay marriage legal? Bestial, incestious, poly, ability to marry my Ford, a rock, my house, etc. etc. etc. (of course that means you ignore the 'legal consent' realities in these situations). Another extension of your argument that if someone dares to argue FOR a position then not also advocating ALL permutations of that position is also hypocritical. Therefore if you don't encumber your position with all possible situations related to your position, then you're hypocritical. Which means EVERYONE is a hypocrite ALL THE TIME. It's asinine to assume that if you don't intentionally include EVERY permutation of something, that you are therefore being hypocritical.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Sarg
    March 2, 2013 10:30 am
    You just poved to the world who the real Hypocrite is...typical liberal. Its my way or everybody else is wrong or stupid. You have ZERO credibility.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    Maplefish - How did I prove your point?
    March 3, 2013 9:37 am
    I guess it's because I had the timerity to have an opinon different that the right wing and then dare to discuss that opinion. I guess that the right wing attack dogs are the only ones that can pronounce who is being hypocritial and who has no credibility - when they themselves can spew the very hypocracy and lack of credibility that they claim everyone else has.... Dude - you and others like you continue to prove that the right wing has more than it's share of hypocrites and people of zero credibility.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • fishnpol wrote...
    This whole thing has been so far blown out of context by the left.
    March 2, 2013 8:08 am
    Most conservatives have no problem with gay unions. If you listen, what they say is it shouldn't be called a marriage. You can have the same rights as a marriage but marriage is by deffinition between a man and a woman. All most of them are saying is lets call an apple an apple and an orange an orange. The numbers in the libs aren't much different, they just pretend to be for political purposes.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    Marriage has been Changed Before
    March 2, 2013 9:15 am
    It can be changed again.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @drool
    March 2, 2013 10:02 am
    Indeed. the 'definition of marriage' has changed hundreds of times over the ages. Used to be a property transaction (bride) between the father and the soon to be husband. Used to have to be approved by the church or village elder. Some societies it required 'arrainged marriages', arrainged by the parents when the couple was too young to know anything about love or marriage. Used to be you couldn't marry outside your village/religion/race. Used to not allow divorce - or the woman to have any say in the marriage. Lots of used to be's. Too bad the anti-gay marriage folks are so stuck in thier non-reality bubble when it comes to arguing against it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @fishpol
    March 2, 2013 9:18 am
    Ah, but any legal institution that is supposedly 'equal' to legal marriage and is designed to create a seperate legal designation is a blatant violation of the Constitutional requirements for equal treatment under the law. To prove my point, substitute 'Republican' for 'gay' and insert whatever group you wish insteat of 'conservative'. "Most ______ have no problem with Republican unions. If you listen, what they say is it shouldn't be called a marriage. " Gee - you wouldn't allow that to stand as an arguement now would you?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Marriage is a religious sacrament. Any Conservative worth his or her salt should say.....
    March 2, 2013 8:32 am
    the government has no business determining who can or cannot be married in some church or another.

    Nor does the government have a right to say that two consenting adults cannot form a community to establish a household and/or hold property.

    "But, but, but!" (pun maybe intended) cry some on the far right! "In some cases, those two consenting adults might be having sex! And they might be of the same gender!"

    To which a real conservative would answer; "It shouldn't the be business of the government whether or not certain people have sex, or how often, or with whom, and in what position, etc, etc, etc"

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Amen, Chuck. I look forward to the day whe we can discuss the politica os freedom ans prosparity WITHOUT boggymen....
    March 2, 2013 9:20 am
    on EITHER side.

    .

    BTW, Sequester was signed yesterday - how come the police are still working and we haven't fallen under the heel of conquest by Canada already?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • circuitfr wrote...
    dumb issue
    March 2, 2013 9:36 am
    The government has NO business being a part in ANY marriage. When I got married, it was between me, my wife, and God, NOT some piece of paper you are compelled to get at some government office. If two men or women want to have a ceremony as well and call it marriage...WHO CARES...but they as well shouldn't be compelled to go to the government for a piece of paper. If you want to talk about "what about my right?" Well, if you get married, straight or gay, simply write up a legal contract giving you power of attorney or explicit right to make your decisions for you. There you go. Leave the government and the states out of marriage all together. Guess what? Problem solved for all! Even the sick friek who marries his donkey. Good for him!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @circuitfr...
    March 2, 2013 10:08 am
    ah, but then if you took away the ability of Conservatives to control what you are allowed to do (or not do) about marriage, then they inevitably lose control over the ability to demand only specific thought, actions, religions and lifestyles. What would the world be like then? Without the overt control over most aspects of our lives where we are not allowed to think/act/behave/believe in any way except the officially acceptable to the one true way - Conservative Extremism? Why, we'd actually be able to discuss things with fewer direct or personal attacks when one dares speak thier honest opinions... Gays would be equal in society. Women wouldn't have to fear the loonies accusing her of 'abortion' when all she's going to planned parenthood for is a checkup or being a responsible person and going for birth control so that she doesn't get pregnant...., etc, etc, etc.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Keitho wrote...
    Former sarge.
    March 2, 2013 11:34 am
    Carry your arguement to its inevitable conclusion. No controls, standards or laws would be allowed. Honor killings? Who are we to judge another religion. Slavery? Who are we to judge other cultures. Marriage loses its definition when any one, number of people or objects can be considered married. Its turned into a joke. The traditional family is weakened and so is society
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @keitho
    March 3, 2013 9:40 am
    Let's see - an arguement that says that one side or group should not have absolute control of what is and isn't right gets twisted into 'if one specific group can't control everything then we MUST assume a world where no group can have any rules'. Your arguement fails because it eliminates the common sense middle ground where common rules apply to all. And gee - I guess the fact that marriage ha
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @keitho part 2...
    March 3, 2013 9:43 am
    Accidently posted before finishing. here's the rest: ------------------------ And gee - I guess the fact that the definition of marriage has changed many, many times. Just becuase you don't like this change doesn't mean that others can't have thier changes. No one person or religion has exclusive rights to it's definition.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    I agree Chuck
    March 2, 2013 10:29 am
    Government should step away from this debate......I also believe there should be no inherent benefits/assumed rights of any married individuals unless obligated through a contractual agreement of the parties.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    "Contractual agreement of the parties"
    March 2, 2013 10:45 am
    That is called marriage.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • heyjim55 wrote...
    What's next?
    March 2, 2013 9:16 am
    So lets say Gays can go ahead and get married does that mean we have herd the last of this? No I think the Left has something else in mind and we will all have to wait and see what that is. I have never thought that allowing gays to marry was really all the Left wanted, no I think there is more to this but I will wait and see they will tip their hands soon enough. I will leave this little tid bit out there the Left actually does not like marriage in the first place true Leftists see it as bourgeoisie. So lets see what they do with the marriage issue after they get their victory in the courts and with a tired Society.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    heyjim, every issue needs to be evaluated on its own merit....
    March 2, 2013 9:50 am
    rather than opposing something merely because you don't trust the group that introduced the idea and suspect they will be back for "something else as well".

    If you're against gay marriage, then great. No problem. Any reasonable person will respect your opinion, as well as your right to hold it. But really, your opinion should be formed because you have some problem with the concept of marriage equality- not because you have some problem with "the Left".

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @heyjim55...
    March 2, 2013 10:09 am
    ridiculous Conspiracy theory nut much?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • soo purletiv wrote...
    @ FormerMarineSgt
    March 2, 2013 10:45 am
    You stated this in regards to Conservatives:"...Without the overt control over most aspects of our lives where we are not allowed to think/act/behave/believe in any way except the officially acceptable to the one true way - Conservative Extremism? Why, we'd actually be able to discuss things with fewer direct or personal attacks when one dares speak thier (sic) honest opinions..."

    You then personally attack heyjimm55 who dared to speak his honest opinion.

    Conclusion drawn, based on your own words:

    You must be a Conservative... ;-)

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Keitho wrote...
    @ FormerMarineSgt
    March 2, 2013 11:41 am
    Conservative control?! Other than running society based on the constitution and not wanting to allow abortion, conservative control is nill. Lets look at liberal control: Your money is not yours, you have no right to choose not to have health insurance, you cant smoke anymore, they are trying to eliminate the use of the automobile, you cant order a large soda, table salt or trans fat in NY, you cant build a factory anymore due to the EPA, Boeing cannot build a plant in a right to work state unless the government says so and on and on it goes.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @keitho
    March 3, 2013 9:50 am
    Come on dude - there's far, far more than just 'abortion' where the right wing has this control. Get honest. For every one thing you can point at where 'liberals' do it, I can easily find 5 that the right does. So let's not play that phony game ok?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @soo....
    March 3, 2013 9:46 am
    "ridiculous Conspiracy theory nut much?" Wow. that's a real personal attack eh? I see that you're selective attention ignores that you do far worse than that yourself... I guess that it's only wrong when you can find a case where you can try to pin it on someone besides yourself or people who think the same way you do.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • soo purletiv wrote...
    @ FormerMarineSgt
    March 3, 2013 4:05 pm
    Lighten up sweetheart.

    I was merely having fun with you (Notice the emoticon?) and your own self righteous post and then the subsequent shot in your foot.

    BTW: I was not the one who COMPLAINED about personal attacks, and then in a post just following that "rant" go on to personally attack someone else. That would be you. So, I wasn't pinning anything on anyone, just pointing out the obvious; which you obviously missed, DUDE...

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Keitho wrote...
    Whats next?!....
    March 2, 2013 11:37 am
    Already here. No they are attacking the boy scouts and trying to force them to allow gay leaders. Recently an article was published stating that sex with children has no negative effect on the child as long as the child is willing. It wont end there either. Until society considers pedophilia and sodomy equal to any other choice, they will not stop.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @Keitho
    March 2, 2013 1:36 pm
    Senator Larry Craig has pledged to only pick up adult leaders. Sodomy is already legal -so good luck on ending it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cameron wrote...
    Thank goodness the old Sarge never got into a position of public responsibility.
    March 2, 2013 12:54 pm
    "ah, but then if you took away the ability of Conservatives to control what you are allowed to do (or not do) about marriage, then they inevitably lose control over the ability to demand only specific thought, actions, religions and lifestyles. What would the world be like then." Thirty years of Democrat/Liberal control in this State Sarge. You can't smoke a cigarette or cigar or pipe in a public or private business unless you are on tribal land. Democrats fought kicking and screaming the privatization of Liquor Sales in this State, forcing an expensive compromise that will take years to straighten itself out. You can't gamble from your own computer at home without becoming a Felon in the State of Washington. No Sarge, you like to pick and choose which freedoms you and your party take away from people, it's pathetic and weak minded, just like your position on Polygamy.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cameron wrote...
    Don't forget the "Closed Shop" at the State as well Sarge.
    March 2, 2013 1:03 pm
    You can apply for any job you want at the State, but you will have to pay the union to actually get and keep the job. Union Representation Fee, or full Union Membership, you have to pay to work for your own Government. Tell us again Sarge, where do all of those political funds flow too? Which Party? Who do the Unions negotiate with for wage and benefit packages? The same people the political contributions flow too? Talk about the ability to control the Government, Sarge you have you tyrants mixed up.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }