Experience money can't buy
Have you seen these big Bernie Sanders banners? The big red ones that say “Bernie for US Senate” and “Experience money can’t buy”?
I don’t get that whole tactic of “don’t vote for Tarrant because he has no experience.” There are like a half dozen letters to the editor daily with that line. Since when do we have a professional congress? What’s next, a requirement that candidates attend a special “politician training school”?
Maybe that should be a college major, including such classes as Fundraising 101, Appropriations Bills: How to hide the pork, and Political Speech: How to sound profound without really saying anything.
Look, I am not Tarrant’s number one cheerleader, but this tactic is as lame as Bernie Sanders is communist. There are a plethora of legitimate reasons to criticize Tarrant on his ideas. They do not include: how long he has been in office, how much money he makes, how many homes he has, or what kind of car he drives.
When we set the standard that only experienced legislators can hold office, we toll the death knell for our democracy.
If you ask me, I think being in office for 16 years is a drawback, not an asset. Bernie has gotten into bed with the very same type of people he originally railed against. He is quickly becoming part of the establishment he so vehemently opposed as the center of his campaign that got him into power in the first place. It's like there is something in the water in Washington that causes people to compromise their principles. But, I digress. That is a topic for a whole other post.
My point here is that one does not need “experience” to be in the Senate. Rich Tarrant has demonstrated that he has character and competence. He is a reputable businessman who has created jobs and given back to his community in other ways as well. That more than qualifies him.
For once I would like to see the Sanders groupies come up with an actual policy or position critique and rise above these petty personal attacks.
59 comments:
Pointing out that someone has no elected experience is not a personal attack. Having served on a legislative body, I know there is a learning curve, even at the municipal level. I'm sure the complexities are at least ten times greater at the national level.
It's empty rhetoric to say having no such experience is an asset, and it is the height of hubris for Tarrant to assume he deserves or is qualified to sit in the United States Senate, without having sat on a city council, a school board, the legislature, or anything.
The only reason Tarrant is seen as a credible candidate is the fact that he has over 100 million dollars in the bank and can self-finance a campaign. And although this is true, Bernie supporters are chastised for bringing up the fact that someone so rich might not embody a decent representation of the average Vermonter in Congress. I have a feeling there's some hypocracy in there somewhere.
And don't call Bernie a Communist. The term "Communist" represents Soviet and Chinese dictatorship more than is does an economic philosophy. As someone who finds virture in dictatorship, Bush, is much closer to being a Communist than Bernie. Get it straight. Bernie is a socialist, not a Communist. There's a difference.
"Having served on a legislative body, I know there is a learning curve, even at the municipal level."
Is that the one that teaches you that your constituents are a bunch of blathering morons? You are not a shining example of someone who has scaled the "learning curve."
I didn’t say “Communist,” I said “communist,” as in:
com•mu•nist
'käm-y&-nist
1 : an adherent or advocate of communism
As in:
com•mu•nism
'käm-y&-"ni-z&m
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
(Should you follow the link, note the difference in definition between capitalized and not.)
Try engaging your brain for a second. My point was that experience as an elected official does not necessarily make one a better elected official by any stretch of the imagination.
And communism is an economic system and form of government, it is actually a form of socialism. The fact that you associate it with the actions of some misguided dead people is meaningless - Hitler and Mussolini were both socialists, but you never hear anyone compare Bernie to them.
You have to be kidding me, Charity. You used the word because it has negative connotations. You hate Bernie and you want people to associate him with Stalin and Mao. Admit it. Just like you want people to associate Bernie's supporters with slutty, drugged-out "groupies." Words count.
Thanks for clarifying the difference between the capitalized and lower-case versions of the word 'communist,' but you knew the afore mentioned associations would be drawn. If the AK hadn't said something, you'd have been perfectly happy to let those associations sit. Otherwise you's have said "socialist" and "supporters" instead of "communist" and "groupies." Who are you kidding?
I am going to go ahead and venture a guess that there is nothing gained by serving in a local legislative body that would help one overcome the learning curve in the Senate. They are two different animals.
Bernie did not have any experience in the Congress when he first ran. Don’t even tell me that being mayor of Burlington is remotely close.
Okay, so you disagree that experience is not that big of a deal. So then, would you vote for someone who is anti-abortion with years of experience over someone who is pro-abortion with no experience? What about someone who is opposed to regulating business with years of experience versus someone who is into that whole government-needs-to-protect-us-from-big-bad-businesses thing with no experience? What about a die-hard neo-con (those are the folks who wanted to go into Iraq and beyond) with years of experience versus someone who is anti-war with no experience?
Are you starting to see my point about experience not being the make-or-break factor?
What most people do not understand is that it is not experience that matters in the Senate, it is SENIORITY, which NEITHER will have. It does not mean a lick that Sanders was in the House. He will be a freshman in the Senate.
"You used the word because it has negative connotations. You hate Bernie and you want people to associate him with Stalin and Mao."
Actually that is not true.
"Just like you want people to associate Bernie's supporters with slutty, drugged-out "groupies.""
And that one is just funny.
Sorry, I don't know what kind of music you are into, but I do not know any groupies like that.
My point was that experience as an elected official does not necessarily make one a better elected official by any stretch of the imagination.
That was your point in insulting me, anonymous? Hmmmm.
The answer is this: Right, not "necessarily," but almost always.
Be reasonable. You want a pilot that's never flown before? You want to be a doctor's very first surgery? Are you trying to tell me experience counts almost everywhere else, but not in the magic realm of governence? Your side doesn't believe in government, and as a result, sucks at governing! Just look at Katrina. What an outrage!
Why don't you engage your brain?!
And Charity, if you don't know any groupies like that, tell me what kind of groupie you do know.
This is funny...
Main Entry: group·ie
Pronunciation: 'grü-pE
Function: noun
1 : a fan of a rock group who usually follows the group around on concert tours
2 : an admirer of a celebrity who attends as many of his or her public appearances as possible
3 : ENTHUSIAST, AFICIONADO [a political groupie] [golf groupies]
...He will be a freshman in the Senate.
Yes.
Again, Charity- you can give me dictionary definitions all you want, but you know how things sound and you used those words because of it. It's obvious. Everybody trying to persuade people does picks the words they think will have a desired impact. Don't even try to front.
"That was your point in insulting me, anonymous?"
You happen to be an excellent counterpoint to your own argument.
"You want to be a doctor's very first surgery?"
You just love to torpedo your own credibility with idiotic analogies like this, don't you?
"you know how things sound and you used those words because of it."
So I guess you want to associate Bernie with Hitler. I thought you wanted him to win?
Boy. You got me, anonymous. Really good points. Wow.
Guess so, since you didn't even attempt to refute them, as usual.
"Everybody trying to persuade people does picks the words they think will have a desired impact."
It is true that I chose those words specifically, but not for the reasons you gave.
I chose the word “groupies,” not to convey the image of drugged out sluts, but to convey the image of people who place Sanders up on a pedestal and hang on his every word. These are the people you see at every Sanders event. They love him. They worship him. They are his groupies.
I chose the word “communist” because I happen to be a big proponent of property rights and Sanders is a, um, well, person who is an adherent or advocate of a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed.
I am sorry if people have a negative association with that word. I don’t need to think about any of the communist dictators to view that word as negative. The fact that they advocate redistribution of wealth is negative enough as it is!
I gave you dictionary definitions because I look up most of the words I use to make sure they have the exact meaning I am looking for. It’s a quirk of mine.
It's a good quirk. I do it too.
“Be reasonable. You want a pilot that's never flown before? You want to be a doctor's very first surgery? Are you trying to tell me experience counts almost everywhere else, but not in the magic realm of governence?”
You succeeded in listing things you need experience for, but there are things you do not need experience for.
For example, I had no experience as a wife, but my husband still married me and believe it or not, I make a pretty good wife. If fact, I doubt that he would rather have a different wife. He was not able to look at my record as a wife, but I possessed a set of qualities that convinced him I would be a good wife – for example, shared interests, shared values, honesty, intellect, compassion, and fortunately for me, he has a strange attraction to bitchy women.
It would have made no sense if someone had said, “Man, you can’t marry her; she has no experience as a wife,” but someone could have disputed my other qualities, such as, “Man, you can’t marry her, she’s a conservative.” Or “She’s going to want to stay at home with the kids and you will have to provide all the financial support.” Luckily for me, we have shared values.
With a Senate candidate, it is, in my view, ridiculous to say, “He has no experience,” but you could say, “He wants to abolish the death tax” or “He supports free-market healthcare.” (I am not listing those as any particular candidate’s positions.)
Of course, no one is born with experience and everyone has to start somewhere. I just think the senate is too high to start with no elected experience.
The issue of experience is also relevent because it gives meaning to the positions a candidate claims. There is no way to know that Tarrant will adhere to particular positions, because he doesn't have a voting record to point to as proof of his convictions. When you vote for someone with no record, it is necessarily a vote based largely on blind faith.
And to get back to your analogy- Blind faith is exactly what a marriage is based on- it's a belief that come what may- the love in a marriage will supercede all challenges. As nobody has a crystal ball, that's the only way it can be with marriage.
But the analogy doesn't hold up. We know somebody is going to the senate. It's either A or B and it's happening on election day. But spouses don't have to be picked on a given day on the calender and the choices are not limited to whom the parties have presented to us. It's totally different. Very often people vote for someone because they hate his opponent. But would you pick someone to marry becuase you hate someone else? That wouldn't make sense. The analogy is false.
Oh and by the way- Tarrant's idea to expand Medicare to cover all Americans is, by definition, government run health care and a redistribution of wealth. His positions as I can see have been enunciated only as blubs and sound-bites. Are you really sure you know where this man stands? How can you be?
I'm guessing you'll vote for him largely becuase you don't like the Bern-man. That's fine I suppose, but it wouldn't be a good way to pick a spouse.
“Oh and by the way- Tarrant's idea to expand Medicare to cover all Americans is, by definition, government run health care and a redistribution of wealth. His positions as I can see have been enunciated only as blubs and sound-bites. Are you really sure you know where this man stands? How can you be?
I'm guessing you'll vote for him largely because you don't like the Bern-man.”
My understanding is that Tarrant’s plan is to expand Medicare to cover the uninsured. That still leaves the market system for the rest of us. Sanders’ plan is for everyone to have the government insurance and abolish the free market. (Anyway, I think Tarrant’s idea is not-so-hot.)
You are right that we are left with the candidates on the ballot, but that does not make the analogy false. We choose the one with the qualities we are looking for from the choices we have. There might be other men with qualities even better than my husbands (though I doubt it), but I had to choose from the choices I had.
I do think I have a pretty good idea of where Tarrant stands and he is not my first choice. That is why I will be voting for Greg Parke in the primary. He is more in line with my views.
If my choices on Election Day are between Bernie and Tarrant, then by far Tarrant represents my views more closely. If there was a candidate who was a free-market, small-government conservative I wouldn’t dream of voting for Tarrant. But, I will have to choose the best from the choices available to me.
Let’s look at your doctor analogy, would you rather have a doctor with years of experience who has a 50% fatality rate with surgery or one fresh out of med school with excellent references as to his ability and skills? Experience isn’t everything. What good is experience if you do not get results? You must know that Sanders is ranked one of the least effective Representatives. Why does his experience make him a better choice?
Wow, interesting exchange I stumbled on here.
I have to ask Andy "Man on the Moon" Kaufman: how do you feel about Hillary Clinton being in the Senate? She certainly did not hold elected office before running for the Senate, and in fact had not been an employee in the public or private sector for a decade before running for office.
And what about Joe Biden? Heck, he was elected to the Senate in his 20's, and his only experience was a term on city council.
Do I need to go into the Kennedys? Patrick wasn't even out of college when he was elected to the House.
And Teddy Kennedy? Other than the U.S. Senate, he has never held another office, and in fact has never held any other full-time job.
I am also tempted - but will resist - going into into the long list of liberals in the Senate that "bought" their seats with their personal wealth. I was going to start with Jay Rockefeller - who doesn't even know where West Virginia is - but that is a topic for another day and another time.
Glad you brought up that ranking thing, Charity. When W was governor of Texas, he was talked of as "effective" because he looked for a couple of things making their way through the legislature and decided to attach himself to what was going to happen anyway. Among them, tort reform. It was a good strategy for producing an appearance of being effective, but he really didn't do anything. (Texas has one of the weakest governorships in the nation. Another good argument why experience in government matters. Five years as governor of Texas, does not a prepared president make, but I digress.) Similarly, when you bring up these congressional "effectivness" all rankings, all you're talking about is how closely a representative's votes have dove-tailed to what eventually became law and policy. That isn't necessarily good and it doesn't necessarily mean anything other than coincidence. Besides, the policies this congress has "effected" are disasterous and have torn at the very fabric of America. I'm glad Bernie's low on those rankings. Being considered among the least effective in hastening our destruction means that in reality, he has been among the most effective at saving us from it.
Anonymous- I don't know about Biden, and you'll have to talk to all the die-hard Kennedy groupies in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, but Hillary, at least was president for eight years. Anyway-I'd guess from your POV that list of previously inexperienced legislators might make you think twice about Tarrant. Remember now, according to you- Tarrant=Rockafeller. (just kiddin')
"Wow, interesting exchange I stumbled on here."
Yeah, we tend to go on like that.
Thanks for the examples.
touche! Good comeback, Andy - I left myself wide open on that one.
"Our country is as successful as it is because of our entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurs create the wealth. Politicians take our wealth.
Do you want vote for an experienced creator or an experienced taker?"
I have nothing to add; I just wanted to see that comment repeated.
Thanks, Hardy, for your insightful contribution to the discussion.
"Entrepreneurs create the wealth. Politicians take our wealth."
So if an unnamed Libertarian candidate should decide to run for Senate (wink, wink), is that person not a politician? If so, then according to your own statement, that Libertarian will take our wealth.
Wow, what a response to the blog entry!
For those new to Libertarianism, I encourage you to read our newly adopted state platform for more insight as to what we believe in as a party.
WHoa.
I'm with Charity. I think Bernie is nuts and that experience isn't worth peanuts if you act like a crazy extremist old codger (not to mention a socialist). Tarrant earned his money legally and legitimately and brought lots of business and capital to the state in the process. Who can say that's a bad thing?
Sure he's not ideal. But at least he's not a washed up old madman spouting off crazed lefty rants at every opportunity.
"Similarly, when you bring up these congressional 'effectivness' all rankings, all you're talking about is how closely a representative's votes have dove-tailed to what eventually became law and policy. That isn't necessarily good and it doesn't necessarily mean anything other than coincidence."
Absolutely incorrect. They measure a congressman's effectiveness in advancing their own agenda relative to that of other congresspersons. If Bernie is incapable of doing his job because the republicans are in power, then all of the democrats are in the same boat; yet Bernie scores extremely poorly even relative to house democrats.
If the congress were run by Nazi's, would you elect a Nazi because he'd have a better chance at advancing his agenda?
This whole ranking thing is propaganda. Vote for what's actually right, not what's expediant.
For crying out loud Kaufman, did you even look at the site?
There are Democrats – liberal Democrats – who score quite high. You do not have to be of like mind with the GOP to be effective.
"For crying out loud Kaufman, did you even look at the site?"
This guy's inability to admit it when he's wrong, or at least stop being so proud of it, is unbelievable. If I was a Bernie supporter, he would make me seriously question the company I keep.
You good folks are missing the big picture. And yes, for cryin' out loud, I read the site. Any methodology that includes a metric for "sizzle factor" is obviously bunk. I stand by everything I said.
"I stand by everything I said."
See what I mean? Amazing.
Okay, Kaufman, moving away from this endless loop... so exactly what will Tarrant do that is so bad? Is this all about Bush? Would you consider Tarrant if he was independent, but had the same views?
This is mainly about Bush, but what are Tarrant's views, exactly? All I hear coming out of his mouth is mush. Seriously- what ideas?
"Seriously- what ideas?"
If you really don't know, why do you expend so much energy screaming that he's the wrong man for the job? The election's not for five months.
Why don't you enumerate Tarrant's views and ideas? What are they? Do you know?
What is it with you demanding that other people educate you on topics on which you've already expressed strong opinions? I know some of Tarrant's views, I'll know more over the next five months, then I'll vote. That's how it works.
You don't know.
"You don't know."
What the hell are you talking about? I'm not the one violently flailing against a candidate, then admitting that I don't know what his views are.
Nobody knows what his views are. That is by design. Clearly you don't, or you would list some of them.
"what are Tarrant's views, exactly?"
Read this for starters.
"Haik Bedrosian said...
Nobody knows what his views are."
It's interesting that you've spewed so much vitriol at the guy when you don't know what his views are.
'fess up, now... you actually want Tarrant to win, don't you? Or do you honestly believe that you are an effective advocate for Bernie's campaign?
I think Charity meant this:
http://www.tarrant06.com/issues/
Looking at a candidate's website, who ever would have thought of that?
Yeah, thanks. I do not know what the heck happened to my link, but that was supposed to be it!
Oh you folks. Sometimes I just don't know. Don't you think I read his website? That's what I'm talking about, of course. Let's look at the issues listed there-
Health Care- Tarrant says let the uninsured buy into Medicare at a price based on ability to pay. Setting aside the fact he hypocritically accuses Sanders of wanting the government to "run our healthcare" let's just think about that proposal for a moment. If I am currently insured with a private company and this plan is in effect- and it's cheaper to opt into Medicare, becuase I earn jack squat, I'll drop my private coverage and do that. So will millions of other people. So it won't just be the 40 or 50 million currently uninsured- it will probably be around 100 million people- and at that point, why not just go with the Bernie plan anyway? On healthcare, Tarrant's plan isn't really a plan at all. It's a soundbite.
On Government Spending- Tarrant says we need to "make decisions about what we can and cannot afford." That's a position?
On Young People leaving VT- Tarrant wants to create Jobs. Well who doesn't? That is not a real position.
On the Minimum Wage- Tarrant wants to raise the national one to the level of the Vermont one. Why? Why not go higher? Why not lower? Why not keep it the same? He doesn't explain. He also doesn't mention if he thinks VT's minimum wage should be higher, which it would have been if the VT House had its way over the VT senate. Tarrant says he wants a standard way of raising the wage, like a COLA. So what? Does that make him different than Bernie?
On Trade- Tarrant says "Globalization is inevitable." Duh. He says he supports trade with our adversaries. I wonder if he means before or after we bomb the hell out of them.
On "The War on Terror"- 9/11 was bad. We must be vigilant. Again- Can anyone seriously consider these real positions?
On Abortion- He hints he's against it, mentioning support for parental notification laws, but then says it's "settled law." He doesn't mention anything about the right to privacy in which the right to this option is based. On this he's obviously riding the fence.
On the Environment- He says 'let's lower emissions.' So what? Like all of these platitudes, that's easy to say, but would he vote to raise standards? To increase enforcement against polluters?
On Animal IDs- Animal IDs? I Never heard of this issue, but I guess he's opposed. Whoop-de-doo.
On Illegal Immigration- He follows the mushy line of the current Senate plan, which in itself isn't much of a position.
On Education- A one paragraph piece of mush in which he says we should fully fund NCLB and SpEd. I wonder what he'd cut to pay for that spending increase. Or would he just raise taxes?
Surely y'all can see that these so-called "positions" are little more than sound-bites and platitudes. He's not saying jack, really, and as I said, that's by design.
Interesting summaries. For example, on job flight, one of the most critical issues facing VT right now:
"To combat youth flight we need to focus on bringing technology jobs from heavy urban areas to rural states like Vermont. As a business owner I am proud of the jobs that I have been able to bring to Vermont. However, like rural electrification in the last century, rural states now need a technology infrastructure and new education options in order to once again stem migration to urban areas."
becomes:
"Tarrant wants to create Jobs. Well who doesn't? That is not a real position."
Bernie's position on job flight:
""
(http://bernie.org/?page_id=77)
Oh, but Bernie does mention pensions! Apparently, he is quite sure despite a lack of any corroborating evidence that his failed attempt at unionizing 2% of IBM's employees drove some minor modifications of their pension plan!
Bernie On Government Spending:
""
Bernie On the Minimum Wage:
""
Bernie On Abortion:
""
Bernie On Illegal Immigration:
""
Bernie On Education:
""
Your primary beef with Tarrant's "issues" page seems to be that there's not enough detail, yet you know perfectly well that when it comes to Iraq, for example, he wants to pull out, like Bernie does. You must know this because he has been saying it for months. Yet you disingenuously sneer at his "position on the war on terror" as lacking because of a brief summary on his website.
The election is in five months. If you don't feel like you have all of the detail behind a candidate's position on something, wait for it. Then you can critique and debate it like an adult.
"If one aligns themself with a party that... (snip) then you pro-Tarrant types have a lot of convincing to do to make even fence-sitters jump to your side."
That makes no sense. If someone's going to vote against the republican regardless, then by definition they're not a fence-sitter.
"...a party that doesn't even try to hide its stance on welfare for corporations, world conquest (i.e. imperialism), worker exploitation, closing the gap between church and state, government-regulated marriage, anti-choice re: abortion, spiking growth in government spending, and much much more."
Yeah, you sure do know your Republican Party. Oh wait. I guess you didn't get the memo. You know, the one that explains that the Republican party is completely divided. Believe it or not, there are some conservatives out there that aren't excited about corporate welfare, closing the church and state gap, etc. I know. It shatters your perfect picture of good and evil doesn't it? There are actually many moderate Republicans (who aren't represented by the fat cats in DC) who believe that government should be more local and less federal. But if you are determined to believe your small picture of reality, so be it. Have fun with your big government, your high taxes, your welfare society, and your poverty. Now that I think of it, that sounds a lot like France. Maybe you should just go there.
“government-regulated marriage”
Can I just say how funny this statement is? The government does regulate marriage. Who do you think you go to to get a marriage license? And what’s with the whole “by the power vested in me by the state of…”? The government really has no business even requiring that we go through the state to get married, but that is a whole other topic. I’m guessing that’s not what you meant.
Anywho, the GOP is Washington is not indicative of what all self-professed Republicans stand for. In fact, many, many conservative thinkers and writers (and talkers and bloggers) are fed up with them. They were elected with the expectation that they would stick to the platform of lower taxes, less government, tort reform, tougher law enforcement, personal responsibility, cleaning out corruption in Washington (how ironic is that?), term limits, etc. Instead, they got in there and turned out to be almost as spend-happy and corrupt as the Democrats they threw out!
If the GOP loses power this fall, it will have just as much to do with fed up conservatives as it does anti-Republican liberals.
"Sorry to hear you think a proposed amendment advocating for open discrimination is funny."
I was talking about the phrase "government-regulated." I thought that was clear.
I'm afraid you have no idea whether or not I support or oppose gay marriage, so don't pretend to know my views.
Where did you see that listed in:
"lower taxes, less government, tort reform, tougher law enforcement, personal responsibility, cleaning out corruption in Washington (how ironic is that?), term limits"?
Here's a clue, Holmes, less government means less government - period. Not more government control. The government has no business in our business - that means controlling education, regulating businesses, redistributing our own personal income and wealth, and legislating morality.
Unfortunately, most anti-Republicans are more than happy for the government to take control of things that they shouldn’t, unless it refers to someone's sex life.
“For someone who bristles at being categorized, you seem well-versed at doing so yourself.”
There is a difference. I said “most anti-Republicans.” I did not assume that anyone in particular had a certain point of view.
It is true that most people who are anti-Republican have liberal views of supporting government regulation of such things as business and education and support raising taxes to fund things and redistribute wealth, is it not?
I did not however assume that was your position because I do not know.
"Libertarians are to be admired for their less-is-best beliefs. But then again, I'm generalizing."
Yes you are, because you didn't qualify "Libertarians" with a word like "most," "some" or "many."
Technically, GiveTexasBack, according to Hardy Macia’s definitions and the smallest political quiz ever, I would be considered libertarian, since I am a small-government conservative. I believe that social changes are best accomplished through private groups or churches, not by using the government to force it.
I choose to try to work within the Republican Party, instead of a third party. However, if there was a good Libertarian candidate, I would support him/her most likely.
“Yes you are, because you didn't qualify "Libertarians" with a word like "most," "some" or "many."”
Are you mocking me, Anonymous?
It's not you that I'm mocking.
It's not the "smallest political quiz ever." It is the "World's Smallest Political Quiz" and you can take it here.
...Some people then ask, “How would gay ‘marriage’ affect the sanctity of heterosexual marriage?” The answer comes from Europe. Stanley Kurtz of the Hoover Institution makes a compelling case that same-sex “marriage” will undermine traditional marriage by increasing the gap between marriage and parenthood. Once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, Kurtz writes, “that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with.”
For example, prior to 1993, when Norwegian courts imposed same-sex “marriage,” Norway had a low out-of-wedlock birth rate. The traditional link between marriage and parenthood was still in place. But once same-sex “marriage” was legalized, Norway’s illegitimacy rate shot up as the link was broken and cohabitation became normal. The same thing is now happening in Holland and Canada. Where gay “marriage” is approved, the number of couples in heterosexual marriages precipitously declines.
Ironically, once gays have the right to marry, few take advantage of it. Evidently, they want the right to marry only because they do not want heterosexuals to have something they can’t have. And they are willing to destroy the institution for everybody else....
link
God. What a crappy ass blog this is. And Charity: Are you a native Vermonter? I'm interested.
I’m curious as to why anyone would read “a crappy ass blog,” but hey, what do I know?
Yes, I am a native Vermonter. (You can tell by the fact that I’m not a whacked-out socialist.)
Post a Comment