Is the ‘Pro-Family’ Party Leading by Example?

reminder Due to copious feedback from our readers, Minnesota Monitor will now be posting a comment policy.

Minnesota Monitor is first and foremost a news and commentary site, and although we are pleased to have a large and politically diverse audience, we understand that many comment threads are inhibiting instead of stimulating discussion.

In order to keep our threads on topic and accessible to all people, we ask that the following guidelines be followed:

Keep comments on topic: We welcome discussion on any of our stories.  We do, however, ask that discussion stay on the topic of the post.  Posts that do not relate to the topic will be deleted with no notice.

Keep discussions respectful: There are many different viewpoints represented both by the reporters and our audience.  Different viewpoints and opinions are welcome, but personal attacks are not.  Personal attacks on the writers, other commentors, or other attacks will not be tolerated, and those posts will be deleted with no notice.

No spamming comment threads: Spam will be defined as any repeated comment, as well as any off-topic comment, including commercial spam or comments not advancing the current topic.  All comment spam will be deleted without notice.

Comment threads are meant to continue and discuss the topic in the post.  Anything that does not advance the topic will be deleted without notice.  We ask that you please adhere to these rules so that all of our audience can enjoy reading our stories.

Thank you.

Flyer was sent/distributed to convention delegates, not primary voters I believe these flyers were either distributed at the GOP endorsement convention, or sent to delegates of the convention – rather than sent to primary voters.  At least that’s how I read the Winona newspaper article on this topic.

Where does the DFL candidate stand on the Bachmann amendment?  Will she vote differently than Gene Pelowski on these issues – Pelowski supported the Bachmann amendment.

Grasp at straw(men) much? You are suggesting that since some people who speak out against the bastardization of the institution of marriage and the concept of family have had trouble maintaining the integrity of their own, society should throw in the towel.

Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

Republican “Family Values”? Hookers, restroom sex
And Bible thumpings are not
Gay “Family Values”.

Republican “Family Values.” Hookers, restroom sex
And Bible thumpings are not
Gay “Family Values”.

I’m saying I’m saying that society is using an old, discriminatory, worn out towel. It’s time to think about getting a new one, one that everyone can use.

Your perception is off. Trouble with that analogy is the towel, while old, isn’t worn out, it still serving it’s intended purpose, and will for generations to come.

You can call a shovel a rake all day, it doesn’t make it so.

There is no such thing as a “marriage” between two people of the same sex, not matter how loud and long you scream it’s so.

BTW, I take it in your extensive research of MN politicians, not one single DFLer has been divorced, or had other marriage problems.  Nor has any gay folks. 

DFL Family Values Oval office BJ’s
Impaired driving into capitol building
Very Cold Cash (I swear I always keep my payola in the freezer)
Bootlegging, Murder, Mayhem, Bridges and Beaches,Kennedy Family scandal (U pick one)
Scofflaws: What, pay a parking ticket? (Ellison) and: What do mean the filing rules apply to me?(Ellison)
Lies: I swear I wont run in the sixth! (Wetterling)
theft:  What, my pant leg isnt certified for storing Top Secret documents?

The problem is.. The DFL isn’t voting against hospital visitation for same-sex couples, benefits for same-sex couples, or even the right of municipalities to vote “yes” or “no” to domestic partner benefits. And neither are gay people obviously. They are not taking a position of hipocrisy on the issue.

It’s one thing to have a divorce or marriage problems. It’s another to have them while telling me that my relationship is destroying America. The reality is, that leaders like these individuals are doing more to devalue marriage in the public spotlight than any gay couple.

And due to my extensive research, I can, with 100% accuracy say that zero gay folks in same-sex relationships have been divorced or had “marriage problems” in Minnesota. Zero!!!

Debatable Those are all debatable charges you are offering, but you left one thing out:

The DFL isn’t campaigning on “family values”!

Why do you hold the DFL to a standard that you don’t for the GOP?

Zero eh! That’s sorta like saying their are zero martians in the MN legislature.  Cant have marriage problems or divorces if you cant (as it shoud be) get married.

So, are you saying that no gay couple in MN has ever parted ways, either amicably or otherwise, or had a physical altercation? 

DFl is against family values So your saying the DFL does not support family values, and would deny that they are important?

Also Who said I didnt hold GOPer’s to the same standard as DFLers, I’m pointing out that you are not, and listed some nefarious deeds by DFLers,  I did not condone or support the actions of the GOPer’s you and other have listed.

You got to take it as well as you dish it out.  If you cant, then you should choose a different subject.

You asked about my research, I answered. You said, “has been divorced, or had other marriage problems.  Nor has any gay folks. ” Because they can’t get married.

“So, are you saying that no gay couple in MN has ever parted ways, either amicably or otherwise, or had a physical altercation?”

Are you comparing same-sex relationships with those traditional marriages of Olson and Draz? It seems like you are. Are same-sex couples on equal par with traditional marriages? Because, if your argument is “no” then you really can’t make that comparison, can you?

I mean, how much sense does it make to compare a towel to a shovel?

? What part of the definition of “hypocrisy” do you not understand? 

The issue is not listing who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, the issue is who is saying one thing and doing another.

I can take it. But you are missing the fundamental argument here. These “family values” members of the GOP continually argue that gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage. Yet, their own high profile actions are doing more to devalue marriage.

It has nothing to do with the DFL. This is not a partisan argument, it is an argument about hypocrisy. It’s like a U.S. Senator railing against drug use while smoking a joint. Or a “family values” politician beating his spouse, or visiting a prostitute. He says he knows what is good for society, yet does the opposite himself.

The DFL doesn’t run on a family values platform saying that gay marriage will destroy society. So for this instance, it makes little sense to point to them and say “look! They do it too!” Especially when your making accusations of embezzlement, murder, et al. They have nothing to do with marriage or the argument I presented.

EXACTLY!!!! Now you get it!

So the real issue is: Gay marriage, not family values.

Now were getting somewhere.

But as you know, the shovel will never be a towel, and it never should be.

That’s a good one …He says he knows what is good for society, yet does the opposite himself. ….

Reminds me of Fienstien and her concealed carry permit.

Another Hypocrit????

fyi that’s totally not haiku

LOL Twisting, twisting, twisting. I get that you at first say gay marriage was not on par with traditional marriage, then compare it to traditional marriage to make a point, and then snark when I point that out.

No The real issue is hypocrisy.

Good Thing, Too! The DFL isn’t campaigning on “family values

Which is a good thing, since so much of what they stand for is inimicable to the health of the family as an institution and as individual groups.

• Public education, as it is today, actively undercuts parental authority
• the DFL opposes all school choice measures.
• Ignore for a moment the larger issue of abortion; the DFL opposes even the most porous parental notification law – itself a gross undermining of all parents (remember, real cases of fear and abuse can be settled by a judge). 
• The DFL (and, to be fair, too much of the GOP) opposes serious family court reform – child custody schedule and income determination reform – as well as the presumption of Joint Physical Custody.  To be fair and accurate, in my experience the GOP reps that oppose these measures do so out of intertia, whereas the DFLers I’ve talked to about the issues (many) do so out of ideological hostility to the notion of fairness in divorce.
• Unbridled spending (and jacking up taxes to slap a veneer of “fiscal responsibility” over it) adds stress to the lives of working families.

Note that “gay marriage” isn’t even part of the list (I support civil unions, for the record).

The DFL would be well-advised to keep “support for the family and the values that help it” well away from their pitch.

D’oh – almost forgot I almost forgot – the DFL wrote the Battered Womens’ Act, which essentially forbids the state from recognizing abuse of men; this is a huge scourge on families in and of itself. 

As many has half of domestic abuse claims brought during divorce and custody actions are false.  The DFL supports – and profits from – the woefully ill-advised status quo in dealing with domestic abuse. 

So let’s compare the parties.

• GOP:  Party full of imperfect, sometimes deeply flawed people who oppose, as a matter of public policy, ideas that harm the family.
• DFL: Party full of equally imperfect, equally deeply flawed people who support policies that (forget about gay marriage for the moment) actively attack families.

You can hop up and down and fling all the poo you want about the problems of any number of legislators, and it will add nothing to the discussion we need to have.

“Hypocrisy”… …of a few cherry-picked individuals is, in any sense that really matters, a complete non-issue.

Irrevancies Hookers, restroom sex
and so on are not “values”
at all.  They are crimes.

So please, let’s do try
to compare similar things…
…to help the debate.

(I mean, we all agree
crime is crime.  Right?  Or do you
turn that off at will?)

Cherry Picked Or High Profile But that depends on your perspective.

Cherries, Profiles, Whatever… …they’re all strawmen that detract from the real debate.

The discussion we NEED to have.. Is that the very people who continually blame gay and lesbian folks for the disintegration of marriage and families are not leading by example. All three of the individuals I discussed created political capital by “exposing” the “dangers” of same-sex relationships.

I’m not talking about strengthening families, unless we’re talking about gay and lesbian families, which was part of the topic of the post.

I’m talking about: “that we should be suspicious when politicians try to legislate rigid traditional standards on people’s private romantic lives, because chances are, they won’t be able to live up to the expectations they set for the rest of us.”

I’m talking about the rhetoric they are flinging. It has nothing to do with poo.

Not straw man “The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.”

I used actual quotes. These are actual positions. Wrong fallacy.

Straw Family Values ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

Exactly. 

Claiming that aberrations and crimes represent a party’s “real” beliefs about, say, family values fit that definition of that logical fallacy to a “T”.

And now, to be realistic Is that the very people who continually blame gay and lesbian folks for the disintegration of marriage and families are not leading by example.

Let’s be accurate here, Andy.  While you point to the whole GOP when you refer to “the very people”, what you really mean is…

All three of the individuals

Three people.  Three.

Leave aside that two of them were involved in divorce actions, which is an emotional environment where most people do things, at one level or another, that they’d never do under normal circumstances (and yes, I would know).  Leave further aside that two of the cases involve “domestic abuse”, a crime whose “he said/she said” aspects are frighteningly escalated during divorce and for which men are generally considered guilty until proven innocent and, frequently, beyond (just ask Alan Fine – right, Eric Black?), which means a situation that is very personal, and intensely emotional and irrational.  In other words, nothing like an intellectual debate about the policy basis of marriage as an institution.

Three cases of people acting not-perfect, under situations that almost anyone would have trouble dealing with, no matter what their political party, under any circumstances.

And this, you say, invalidates the whole party’s stance on “family values” (a term I don’t care for, by the way), to say nothing of the traditional definition of marriage in every culture on earth?

It seems a bit of a stretch.

I’m talking about: “that we should be suspicious when politicians try to legislate rigid traditional standards on people’s private romantic lives, because chances are, they won’t be able to live up to the expectations they set for the rest of us.”

Andy, while I accept that we may have differences about the issue gay marriage (again, I support civil unions), you make a huge leap, from “three people who have problems under crappy circumstances” to, in your words, “chances are, they won’t be able to live up to the expectations…”.  Really?  You think the vast majority of Republican legislators (and for that matter Democrats) don’t live up to their own ideals? 00

I’m talking about the rhetoric they are flinging. It has nothing to do with poo. 

It’s a figure of speech, Andy.  Leftybloggers see Republicans who screw up, and hop up and down like monkeys at the zoo, flinging poo and chattering like happy little lemurs.

And who doesn’t like lemurs?

At Any Rate… …I referred to “the argument we NEED to have” for a reason, Andy.

Let’s say you get your wish; your article fills people with such revulsion with Republican “hypocrisy” and perfidy that the Gay Marriage agenda sweeps to victory.  Y’all can enjoy the blessings of being henpecked, negated, and the joys of family court, child support, and loss of meaningful custody…

…sorry.  That took a realistic ugly turn.  Let me start over.

Say you get gay marriage.  Congrats. You’re peers, on exactly the same par as all the rest of us.  You get to raise families of your own (as, in fact, y’all already can…hmmm)…

…which will be hamstrung, undercut, degraded and assaulted by the DFL policies I mentioned above.  Your values – whatever they are – as a parent will be actively squelched by DFL policy. 

Will that be of interest to  y’all, then?

Well, it’s of interest – immediate, vital interest – to a lot of us right now, in ways that are a lot more immediate than all of the canoodling about gay marriage and three representatives’ human failings that you could possibly name. 

Get back to us when you find it of interest.

Even the blind squirrel…. “The DFL isn’t campaigning on “family values”!”

Never thought I’d see the day when MiniMoni posted the pure, unvarnished truth.

So Since Perfection Is The Standard… …you’re set, Andy – because remember, you’re impugning the entire GOP’s policy on gay marriage, all millions of us, all of the thousands of elected Republican officials, because of the actions of two Minnesota and one national Republicans, let’s hold you, Andy, to the standard you’ve set for us (and, while we’re on the subject, me):

Three weeks ago, some of us caught Jeff Fecke committing a slew of, at the very least, ,journalistic gaffes:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Someone else found something.

He’d seem to be, at the very least, guilty of extremely slipshod basic journalism, and possibly plagiarism.

By your own logic, Andy, the reader should regard all of you MNMon reporters with suspicion because of Fecke’s trasgressions.  The GOP wants the people to trust them on social policy; the Monitor wants people to trust them on news.  The only real difference; about .0001% of Republicans have been accused of domestic abuse or caught with their phone numbers in a hooker’s phone book, behavior that 99.999% of Republicans condemn. 

In the meantime, 16% of Minnesota Monitor reporters have been alleged to be slipshod reporters and/or plagiarists.  And since the Minnesota Monitor, breaking its own “Code of Ethics”, has neither publcly acknowledge nor corrected these “mistakes”, it implies that 100% of the Monitor approves.

So do you have different moral standards on different issues? 

Or do you perhaps see where maybe the point of your article is logically void?

The discussion we need to have Is why some people find it necessary to drag their “private romantic lives” out in public and stick it uder every one else’s noses. Especially when those “private romantic lives” include acts that the majority of decent people find, um, repugnant.

Those “rigid traditional standards” were laid down by nature…live with it.

“I’m talking about: “that we should be suspicious when politicians try to legislate rigid traditional standards on people’s private romantic lives,”

Not Perfection I haven’t written that perfection should be the standard. Just that it makes little sense to say that I’m incapable of having something (state-sanctioned benefits of being in a committed relationship) because I’m somehow “immoral.” And at the same time, divorcing without even acknowledging that THAT is the behavior that undermines marriage. 

And you are right, Mitch. I erred in using a blanket statement about the entire party. I appreciate your feedback in will incorporate it into future columns. Not every member of the Republican Party is a serial spouse. Or violent toward their spouse.

“logically void”? No. Imperfect? Yes.

Of course, there have been many more prominent Republicans with “moral failings” who have called same-sex relationships a “moral failing,” among other condemnations of people who don’t fit their worldview. Here’s a list of 110 or so.

It’s not all Republicans, but it is some. I don’t want, or haven’t asked for all socially conservative Republicans to stuff it. It’s that we should pay attention to what they say vs. what they do.

And I do appreciate your stance on the issue, Mitch, BTW.

What do you define “private romantic lives”? I’m going to hold my partners hand in public. Live with it.

We’re going to hug, and maybe even plant a kiss on the cheek now and then. Live with it.

If we decide to have a commitment ceremony, we’ll have it at a place of our choosing. Live with it.

If those actions get stuck under your nose. Live with it.

Actually Bill Clinton Advertised as a Family Values Candidate in 96 All while acting differently.  He had ads on christian radio talking about signing DOMA.  Harold Ford – D, Tennesee – also bragged about his family values – and Harold Ford is known as a “casanova”. 

Contrast the Clintons with the Cheney family values.  The Cheney’s are loyal to their kids – and their kids are loyal to their parents.  You might disagree with Dick Cheney on his politics, but you got to admire him for sticking up for his daughter. 

I like it when we are finally pointing out how many straight people are hypocritical on this – rather than outing Republican gay people. 

Mitch Berg must be trolling for traffic His post doesn’t address the issue at hand.

Um, yeah. Wow – Eva Young calling me a traffic troll!

“Trolling for traffic” here would be marginally more effective than trolling at Lloydletta.

And I am on the subject, Eva.  Read it again.  Or read it for the first time, if your usual performance is any indication.

reminder Due to copious feedback from our readers, Minnesota Monitor will now be posting a comment policy.

Minnesota Monitor is first and foremost a news and commentary site, and although we are pleased to have a large and politically diverse audience, we understand that many comment threads are inhibiting instead of stimulating discussion.

In order to keep our threads on topic and accessible to all people, we ask that the following guidelines be followed:

Keep comments on topic: We welcome discussion on any of our stories.  We do, however, ask that discussion stay on the topic of the post.  Posts that do not relate to the topic will be deleted with no notice.

Keep discussions respectful: There are many different viewpoints represented both by the reporters and our audience.  Different viewpoints and opinions are welcome, but personal attacks are not.  Personal attacks on the writers, other commentors, or other attacks will not be tolerated, and those posts will be deleted with no notice.

No spamming comment threads: Spam will be defined as any repeated comment, as well as any off-topic comment, including commercial spam or comments not advancing the current topic.  All comment spam will be deleted without notice.

Comment threads are meant to continue and discuss the topic in the post.  Anything that does not advance the topic will be deleted without notice.  We ask that you please adhere to these rules so that all of our audience can enjoy reading our stories.

Thank you.

Flyer was sent/distributed to convention delegates, not primary voters I believe these flyers were either distributed at the GOP endorsement convention, or sent to delegates of the convention – rather than sent to primary voters.  At least that's how I read the Winona newspaper article on this topic.

Where does the DFL candidate stand on the Bachmann amendment?  Will she vote differently than Gene Pelowski on these issues – Pelowski supported the Bachmann amendment.

Grasp at straw(men) much? You are suggesting that since some people who speak out against the bastardization of the institution of marriage and the concept of family have had trouble maintaining the integrity of their own, society should throw in the towel.

Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

Republican “Family Values”? Hookers, restroom sex

And Bible thumpings are not

Gay “Family Values”.

Republican “Family Values.” Hookers, restroom sex

And Bible thumpings are not

Gay “Family Values”.

I'm saying I'm saying that society is using an old, discriminatory, worn out towel. It's time to think about getting a new one, one that everyone can use.

Your perception is off. Trouble with that analogy is the towel, while old, isn't worn out, it still serving it's intended purpose, and will for generations to come.

You can call a shovel a rake all day, it doesn't make it so.

There is no such thing as a “marriage” between two people of the same sex, not matter how loud and long you scream it's so.

BTW, I take it in your extensive research of MN politicians, not one single DFLer has been divorced, or had other marriage problems.  Nor has any gay folks. 

DFL Family Values Oval office BJ's

Impaired driving into capitol building

Very Cold Cash (I swear I always keep my payola in the freezer)

Bootlegging, Murder, Mayhem, Bridges and Beaches,Kennedy Family scandal (U pick one)

Scofflaws: What, pay a parking ticket? (Ellison) and: What do mean the filing rules apply to me?(Ellison)

Lies: I swear I wont run in the sixth! (Wetterling)

theft:  What, my pant leg isnt certified for storing Top Secret documents?

The problem is.. The DFL isn't voting against hospital visitation for same-sex couples, benefits for same-sex couples, or even the right of municipalities to vote “yes” or “no” to domestic partner benefits. And neither are gay people obviously. They are not taking a position of hipocrisy on the issue.

It's one thing to have a divorce or marriage problems. It's another to have them while telling me that my relationship is destroying America. The reality is, that leaders like these individuals are doing more to devalue marriage in the public spotlight than any gay couple.

And due to my extensive research, I can, with 100% accuracy say that zero gay folks in same-sex relationships have been divorced or had “marriage problems” in Minnesota. Zero!!!

Debatable Those are all debatable charges you are offering, but you left one thing out:

The DFL isn't campaigning on “family values”!

Why do you hold the DFL to a standard that you don't for the GOP?

Zero eh! That's sorta like saying their are zero martians in the MN legislature.  Cant have marriage problems or divorces if you cant (as it shoud be) get married.

So, are you saying that no gay couple in MN has ever parted ways, either amicably or otherwise, or had a physical altercation? 

DFl is against family values So your saying the DFL does not support family values, and would deny that they are important?

Also Who said I didnt hold GOPer's to the same standard as DFLers, I'm pointing out that you are not, and listed some nefarious deeds by DFLers,  I did not condone or support the actions of the GOPer's you and other have listed.

You got to take it as well as you dish it out.  If you cant, then you should choose a different subject.

You asked about my research, I answered. You said, “has been divorced, or had other marriage problems.  Nor has any gay folks. ” Because they can't get married.

“So, are you saying that no gay couple in MN has ever parted ways, either amicably or otherwise, or had a physical altercation?”

Are you comparing same-sex relationships with those traditional marriages of Olson and Draz? It seems like you are. Are same-sex couples on equal par with traditional marriages? Because, if your argument is “no” then you really can't make that comparison, can you?

I mean, how much sense does it make to compare a towel to a shovel?

? What part of the definition of “hypocrisy” do you not understand? 

The issue is not listing who's been naughty and who's been nice, the issue is who is saying one thing and doing another.

I can take it. But you are missing the fundamental argument here. These “family values” members of the GOP continually argue that gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage. Yet, their own high profile actions are doing more to devalue marriage.

It has nothing to do with the DFL. This is not a partisan argument, it is an argument about hypocrisy. It's like a U.S. Senator railing against drug use while smoking a joint. Or a “family values” politician beating his spouse, or visiting a prostitute. He says he knows what is good for society, yet does the opposite himself.

The DFL doesn't run on a family values platform saying that gay marriage will destroy society. So for this instance, it makes little sense to point to them and say “look! They do it too!” Especially when your making accusations of embezzlement, murder, et al. They have nothing to do with marriage or the argument I presented.

EXACTLY!!!! Now you get it!

So the real issue is: Gay marriage, not family values.

Now were getting somewhere.

But as you know, the shovel will never be a towel, and it never should be.

That's a good one …He says he knows what is good for society, yet does the opposite himself. ….

Reminds me of Fienstien and her concealed carry permit.

Another Hypocrit????

fyi that's totally not haiku

LOL Twisting, twisting, twisting. I get that you at first say gay marriage was not on par with traditional marriage, then compare it to traditional marriage to make a point, and then snark when I point that out.

No The real issue is hypocrisy.

Good Thing, Too! The DFL isn't campaigning on “family values

Which is a good thing, since so much of what they stand for is inimicable to the health of the family as an institution and as individual groups.<ul><li>Public education, as it is today, actively undercuts parental authority</li><li>the DFL opposes all school choice measures.</li><li>Ignore for a moment the larger issue of abortion; the DFL opposes even the most porous parental notification law – itself a gross undermining of all parents (remember, real cases of fear and abuse can be settled by a judge).  </li><li>The DFL (and, to be fair, too much of the GOP) opposes serious family court reform – child custody schedule and income determination reform – as well as the presumption of Joint Physical Custody.  To be fair and accurate, in my experience the GOP reps that oppose these measures do so out of intertia, whereas the DFLers I've talked to about the issues (many) do so out of ideological hostility to the notion of fairness in divorce.</li><li>Unbridled spending (and jacking up taxes to slap a veneer of “fiscal responsibility” over it) adds stress to the lives of working families.</li></ul>Note that “gay marriage” isn't even part of the list (I support civil unions, for the record).

The DFL would be well-advised to keep “support for the family and the values that help it” well away from their pitch.

D'oh – almost forgot I almost forgot – the DFL wrote the Battered Womens' Act, which essentially forbids the state from recognizing abuse of men; this is a huge scourge on families in and of itself. 

As many has half of domestic abuse claims brought during divorce and custody actions are false.  The DFL supports – and profits from – the woefully ill-advised status quo in dealing with domestic abuse. 

So let's compare the parties.<ul><li>GOP:  Party full of imperfect, sometimes deeply flawed people who oppose, as a matter of public policy, ideas that harm the family.</li><li>DFL: Party full of equally imperfect, equally deeply flawed people who support policies that (forget about gay marriage for the moment) actively attack families.</li></ul>You can hop up and down and fling all the poo you want about the problems of any number of legislators, and it will add nothing to the discussion we need to have.

“Hypocrisy”… …of a few cherry-picked individuals is, in any sense that really matters, a complete non-issue.

Irrevancies Hookers, restroom sex

and so on are not “values”

at all.  They are crimes.

So please, let's do try

to compare similar things…

…to help the debate.

(I mean, we all agree

crime is crime.  Right?  Or do you

turn that off at will?)

Cherry Picked Or High Profile But that depends on your perspective.

Cherries, Profiles, Whatever… …they're all strawmen that detract from the real debate.

The discussion we NEED to have.. Is that the very people who continually blame gay and lesbian folks for the disintegration of marriage and families are not leading by example. All three of the individuals I discussed created political capital by “exposing” the “dangers” of same-sex relationships.

I'm not talking about strengthening families, unless we're talking about gay and lesbian families, which was part of the topic of the post.

I'm talking about: “that we should be suspicious when politicians try to legislate rigid traditional standards on people's private romantic lives, because chances are, they won't be able to live up to the expectations they set for the rest of us.”

I'm talking about the rhetoric they are flinging. It has nothing to do with poo.

Not straw man “The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.”

I used actual quotes. These are actual positions. Wrong fallacy.

Straw Family Values ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

Exactly. 

Claiming that aberrations and crimes represent a party's “real” beliefs about, say, family values fit that definition of that logical fallacy to a “T”.

And now, to be realistic Is that the very people who continually blame gay and lesbian folks for the disintegration of marriage and families are not leading by example.

Let's be accurate here, Andy.  While you point to the whole GOP when you refer to “the very people”, what you really mean is…

All three of the individuals

Three people.  Three.

Leave aside that two of them were involved in divorce actions, which is an emotional environment where most people do things, at one level or another, that they'd never do under normal circumstances (and yes, I would know).  Leave further aside that two of the cases involve “domestic abuse”, a crime whose “he said/she said” aspects are frighteningly escalated during divorce and for which men are generally considered guilty until proven innocent and, frequently, beyond (just ask Alan Fine – right, Eric Black?), which means a situation that is very personal, and intensely emotional and irrational.  In other words, nothing like an intellectual debate about the policy basis of marriage as an institution.

Three cases of people acting not-perfect, under situations that almost anyone would have trouble dealing with, no matter what their political party, under any circumstances.

And this, you say, invalidates the whole party's stance on “family values” (a term I don't care for, by the way), to say nothing of the traditional definition of marriage in every culture on earth?

It seems a bit of a stretch.

I'm talking about: “that we should be suspicious when politicians try to legislate rigid traditional standards on people's private romantic lives, because chances are, they won't be able to live up to the expectations they set for the rest of us.”

Andy, while I accept that we may have differences about the issue gay marriage (again, I support civil unions), you make a huge leap, from “three people who have problems under crappy circumstances” to, in your words, “chances are, they won't be able to live up to the expectations…”.  Really?  You think the vast majority of Republican legislators (and for that matter Democrats) don't live up to their own ideals? 00

I'm talking about the rhetoric they are flinging. It has nothing to do with poo. 

It's a figure of speech, Andy.  Leftybloggers see Republicans who screw up, and hop up and down like monkeys at the zoo, flinging poo and chattering like happy little lemurs.

And who doesn't like lemurs?

At Any Rate… …I referred to “the argument we NEED to have” for a reason, Andy.

Let's say you get your wish; your article fills people with such revulsion with Republican “hypocrisy” and perfidy that the Gay Marriage agenda sweeps to victory.  Y'all can enjoy the blessings of being henpecked, negated, and the joys of family court, child support, and loss of meaningful custody…

…sorry.  That took a <strike>realistic</strike> ugly turn.  Let me start over.

Say you get gay marriage.  Congrats. You're peers, on exactly the same par as all the rest of us.  You get to raise families of your own (as, in fact, y'all already can…hmmm)…

…which will be hamstrung, undercut, degraded and assaulted by the DFL policies I mentioned above.  Your values – whatever they are – as a parent will be actively squelched by DFL policy. 

Will that be of interest to  y'all, then?

Well, it's of interest – immediate, vital interest – to a lot of us right now, in ways that are a lot more immediate than all of the canoodling about gay marriage and three representatives' human failings that you could possibly name. 

Get back to us when you find it of interest.

Even the blind squirrel…. “The DFL isn't campaigning on “family values”!”

Never thought I'd see the day when MiniMoni posted the pure, unvarnished truth.

So Since Perfection Is The Standard… …you're set, Andy – because remember, you're impugning the entire GOP's policy on gay marriage, all millions of us, all of the thousands of elected Republican officials, because of the actions of two Minnesota and one national Republicans, let's hold you, Andy, to the standard you've set for us (and, while we're on the subject, me):

Three weeks ago, some of us caught Jeff Fecke committing a slew of, at the very least, ,journalistic gaffes:<ul>

<li>Part 1</li>

<li>Part 2</li>

<li>Part 3</li>

<li>Someone else found something.</li></ul>He'd seem to be, at the very least, guilty of extremely slipshod basic journalism, and possibly plagiarism.

By your own logic, Andy, the reader should regard all of you MNMon reporters with suspicion because of Fecke's trasgressions.  The GOP wants the people to trust them on social policy; the Monitor wants people to trust them on news.  The only real difference; about .0001% of Republicans have been accused of domestic abuse or caught with their phone numbers in a hooker's phone book, behavior that 99.999% of Republicans condemn. 

In the meantime, 16% of Minnesota Monitor reporters have been alleged to be slipshod reporters and/or plagiarists.  And since the Minnesota Monitor, breaking its own “Code of Ethics”, has neither publcly acknowledge nor corrected these “mistakes”, it implies that 100% of the Monitor approves.

So do you have different moral standards on different issues? 

Or do you perhaps see where maybe the point of your article is logically void?

The discussion we need to have Is why some people find it necessary to drag their “private romantic lives” out in public and stick it uder every one else's noses. Especially when those “private romantic lives” include acts that the majority of decent people find, um, repugnant.

Those “rigid traditional standards” were laid down by nature…live with it.

“I'm talking about: “that we should be suspicious when politicians try to legislate rigid traditional standards on people's private romantic lives,”

Not Perfection I haven't written that perfection should be the standard. Just that it makes little sense to say that I'm incapable of having something (state-sanctioned benefits of being in a committed relationship) because I'm somehow “immoral.” And at the same time, divorcing without even acknowledging that THAT is the behavior that undermines marriage. 

And you are right, Mitch. I erred in using a blanket statement about the entire party. I appreciate your feedback in will incorporate it into future columns. Not every member of the Republican Party is a serial spouse. Or violent toward their spouse.

“logically void”? No. Imperfect? Yes.

Of course, there have been many more prominent Republicans with “moral failings” who have called same-sex relationships a “moral failing,” among other condemnations of people who don't fit their worldview. Here's a list of 110 or so.

It's not all Republicans, but it is some. I don't want, or haven't asked for all socially conservative Republicans to stuff it. It's that we should pay attention to what they say vs. what they do.

And I do appreciate your stance on the issue, Mitch, BTW.

What do you define “private romantic lives”? I'm going to hold my partners hand in public. Live with it.

We're going to hug, and maybe even plant a kiss on the cheek now and then. Live with it.

If we decide to have a commitment ceremony, we'll have it at a place of our choosing. Live with it.

If those actions get stuck under your nose. Live with it.

Actually Bill Clinton Advertised as a Family Values Candidate in 96 All while acting differently.  He had ads on christian radio talking about signing DOMA.  Harold Ford – D, Tennesee – also bragged about his family values – and Harold Ford is known as a “casanova”. 

Contrast the Clintons with the Cheney family values.  The Cheney's are loyal to their kids – and their kids are loyal to their parents.  You might disagree with Dick Cheney on his politics, but you got to admire him for sticking up for his daughter. 

I like it when we are finally pointing out how many straight people are hypocritical on this – rather than outing Republican gay people. 

Mitch Berg must be trolling for traffic His post doesn't address the issue at hand.

Um, yeah. Wow – Eva Young calling me a traffic troll!

“Trolling for traffic” here would be marginally more effective than trolling at Lloydletta.

And I am on the subject, Eva.  Read it again.  Or read it for the first time, if your usual performance is any indication.