“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.

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. 

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.

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.

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,”

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?

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.

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?