Posted by Anthony Gregory on 11/04/09 1:57 PM [Newer: Andrew Napolitano: Health Care Bill Will Destroy American Liberty ] [Older: Three Articles Daily]

Voters are rebelling against the Obama agenda of accelerated nationalization, domestic socialism, Obamacare, Cap and Trade and all the rest. This is the program that is repelling Americans, not Obama's fictitious softening of the war on terror. Just as Democrats tried to spin the 2006 elections as a victory for socialist ideas, when it was really a public denunciation of the Bush war policy, these elections represent disconent with the Washington establishment and statist quo. In other words, it is good news, even if it will not materialize into the revolution for freedom we all want.

In the short term, however, this is a great obstruction to Obamacare, the ghastly attempt to fix America's partially broken health care system, all the fault of government intervention, with yet more federal poison. Three cheers for the public waking up!

Posted 11/04/09 2:17 PM nowls Atlanta, GA

The elections appeared to be a referendum on the Obama administration and its efforts to continue the expansion of Federal power. But yesterday wasn't all good news. Unfortunately the voters of Maine decided to ban the right of private individuals to enter into the contract of marriage with gay partners. I'm appalled at this blatant disregard for civil liberties. It is quite simply the majority exercising tyranny over the minority, or trying to legislate a specific brand of religious dogma over all Maine's citizens. I wish C4L took more of a stand on this issue, but based on the religious arc through some of the articles on this site, I fear it won't be addressed properly. Hopefully there are at least SOME advocates on C4L for gay citizens' equal protection under the law.

Posted 11/04/09 2:38 PM jwfox1965 Las Vegas, NV

"Unfortunately the voters of Maine decided to ban the right of private individuals to enter into the contract of marriage with gay partners." Actually I think it was more the wording of the referendum in Maine than anything else, Washington State passed a similar ballot measure which left out the word marriage while acknowledging that gay couples have all the same rights & responsibilities (domestic partnerships) as married couples. The "gay rights" activists need to learn from experience and leave the word "marriage" out of any proposal put before the public because once it's included in the language it loses every time. Personally I think gay couples deserve all the same rights as everybody else and the phrase "gay marriage" doesn't bother me but that phrase DOES bother a lot of people that would otherwise support equal rights on this issue. These activities also need to drop the whole "gay rights" phraseology since there is no such thing, there are rights and equal rights but the term "gay rights" sounds as if they are looking to be treated as something special.

Posted 11/04/09 2:44 PM smashysmashy dover, NH

Woah woah woah Anthony! These elections are NOT a referendum on the President. That's what CNN has posted right now as their headlining story, and they base that on absolutely nothing. So you can take your facts elsewhere, they aren't welcomed in the "real" world. LoL. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/04/election.analysis/index.html N owis - C4L advocates gay citizens' equal protection by promoting freedom and individual rights. There are many smaller issues that C4L doesn't give a lot of direct stand on because they are covered under our general appetite for promoting personal liberties. I would be surprised if there was even one serious C4L member who didn't advocate gay rights. The problem with micromanaging the issue is because (IMO) it is a double edged sword. This is because in our particular political realm/nightmare, advocating gay rights is also advocating tyranny over freedom of religion. This is because churches will certainly be prosecuted for not upholding equal rights if they are not forced into marrying same sex couples. So by advocating gay rights, we have good reason to believe we are fighting against the rights of another group. Certainly we want same-sex individuals to enjoy the same liberties we do, while not forcing tyranny on religious organizations. This is why promoting general freedom and personal liberties we are certainly advocating the rights of same sex couples and EVERYONE for that matter.

Posted 11/04/09 2:50 PM smashysmashy dover, NH

Ditto on "gay rights" jwfox... substitute "gay rights" with equal rights for same sex couples in my post

Posted 11/04/09 2:58 PM DevilDog4Liberty Kailua, HI

The government should have no role in the marriage business in the first place. I think if more of the gay rights activists pushed for non-government intervention in ANY marriages this debate would be over. Instead of trying to push for gay marriage, let's push for government OUT of marriage! Let the churches decide who they want to marry. It isn't the government's business to decide!

Posted 11/04/09 3:06 PM nowls Atlanta, GA

@jwfox1965 - You'll notice I never used the term "gay rights"; in fact, I specifically said "gay citizens' equal protection under the law". Also I don't believe any one group has a monopoly on the term "marriage", which is why I denounce one group denying it to another. @smashysmashy - You're absolutely right that private religious institutions should not be forced to accept a definition of marriage that they find unacceptable. My denunciation of what happened in Maine was intentionally cursory. Furthermore, the text of the law expressly forbade the regulation of how private religious institutions define marriage (Sec. 5. 19-A MRSA §655, sub-§3) See: http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/glrts/maine-same-sex-marriage.html

Posted 11/04/09 4:25 PM ateal Sharpsburg, GA

Actually, nowls, whether you want to believe it or not, marriage is a Judeo-Christian doctrine through and through. For the record, I parrot smashysmashy's comments. I am all for equal rights for everyone, but when you make "gay marriage" legal, you open the door to lawsuits against individual pastors and churches for violating the law if they choose not to perform gay marriages. In my opinion, if ANY two people, gay, straight, in love, or just good friends, choose to enter into a financial bond (because this is all it really is in the eyes of the government), they should have that right. If two really good guy friends who are not gay want to pool their money and live as a "couple," why should they get any different treatment than a married man and woman?

Posted 11/04/09 4:45 PM Learning Bethesda, MD

I am with Ateal. The solution is to get the State out of the marraige business. I am a traditional Christian and believe that marraige is an instituition ordained by God. Obviously, there are divergent views on this and will not reach agreement as to the morality of it in a political discussion. What can happen is that Government stays out of the Marraige business, and people can make whatever arraignment the wish, with whoever they wish. Nobody has to violate their conscience. A smaller government would mean less taxes: I wouldn't tax you to take care of my spouse and children. You would not tax us for your necessities or force us to recognize your arrangements against our conscience.

Posted 11/04/09 5:07 PM TDawg2002 Savannah, GA

I wish I shared your enthusiasm for the results of these elections. It really doesn't matter to me if people who are fed up with Obama start voting for republicans, though. Republicans are just as bad for Liberty as the democrats. Same coin, other side. This isn't any measure of progress as far as I'm concerned.

Posted 11/04/09 5:55 PM nowls Atlanta, GA

@ateal - I agree that the government should not be in the business of regulating marriage in the first place. However, even under the assumption that marriage is a Judeo-Christian doctrine, should anyone be allowed to deny two individuals from using the term? No doubt, churches are unlikely to redefine marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman in the eyes of God. But why does "gay civil marriage" present a problem? Any reasonable legislation endorsing gay civil marriage would prohibit the government from forcing any definition of marriage onto a private religious institution, and Maine's law was reasonable in that sense. The biggest issue is that gay couples don't want to say "we're joined in civil union." They want to be able to say "we're married", because they want to express its powerful meaning of love and commitment in the same way straight couples do. Denying them that is unfair.

Posted 11/04/09 6:09 PM jwfox1965 Las Vegas, NV

"@jwfox1965 - You'll notice I never used the term "gay rights"; in fact, I specifically said "gay citizens' equal protection under the law". Also I don't believe any one group has a monopoly on the term "marriage", which is why I denounce one group denying it to another. " I was trying to imply that you had used the term, I was just pointing out a general observation. I understand that you don't believe any one group has a monopoly on the term "marriage" but you should understand that many people believe very strongly that the term "marriage" in this context is only applicable to the union of a man and a woman, should we not respect this deeply held belief which has been upheld by centuries of tradition? and if advocates of equal rights for gay couples don't wish to do this and insist on continuing to tie the issue to the word marriage (which as I said has been a 100% loser so far in 31 of 31 states) aren't they being just as insensitive to the beliefs of others as they accuse other people of being to thiers?

Posted 11/04/09 6:19 PM nowls Atlanta, GA

@jwfox1965 - No, they aren't being insensitive to religious beliefs AS LONG AS they don't try to FORCE religious institutions to perform gay marriage. For example, advocates for gay marriage should not be allowed to dictate to the Roman Catholic church how to define Catholic marriage, which is the holy union between a man and a woman.

Posted 11/04/09 9:24 PM Mike in Virginia Fredericksburg, VA

Here is an interesting perspective on the elections, from a progressive writer for The Hill: The winner of the 2009 elections is: Ron Paul! By Brent Budowsky - 11/03/09 08:29 AM ET Forget the spin and the slop. The real winner of the 2009 elections is the public official and candidate who has championed the core insurgency driving the election. It is Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul. Paul embodies the anti-Washington, anti-tax, anti-big government, anti-financial insiderism viewpoints that are galvanizing large numbers of activists and voters. It is not a majority, but a majority has never been Ron Paul's goal. Paul is a conviction politician, an idea man, an advocate and a change agent. The Democratic spin is that the Republicans have moved much too far to the right. This is true in a sense. But remember, Democratic smarties said the same thing before Ronald Reagan was elected and before Newt and Republicans won in 1994. I agree with some things Paul says, and disagree with others, but the truth of the matter, politically, is that his agenda has moved center stage and his people are highly motivated and this is a serious movement that is underestimated and misunderstood by Washington insiders. What Democrats need to do is forget the PR and forget the spin and do what they were elected to do in 2006 and 2008. They should fight for a progressive populist agenda that takes on the powerful interests that have given us this Gilded Age, interests that a majority of Americans from the political left and independent center are both against. But for now, for today, my take is forget the smarties and forget the smoothies, because the real winner of the 2009 elections is the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ron Paul.

Posted 11/05/09 06:36 AM jwfox1965 Las Vegas, NV

"@jwfox1965 - No, they aren't being insensitive to religious beliefs AS LONG AS they don't try to FORCE religious institutions to perform gay marriage. For example, advocates for gay marriage should not be allowed to dictate to the Roman Catholic church how to define Catholic marriage, which is the holy union between a man and a woman." Who said anything about religious beliefs? Marriage being defined as between a man and a woman is a traditional definition which isn't exclusive to religion. Why should one group of people have the right to come along and change the definitions of words that have centuries of tradition behind them?

Posted 11/05/09 08:02 AM celticreeler Rolla, MO

My thoughts, taking only the NJ and VA gubernatorial races and the NY 23 House race into perspective, are that the majority of those inclined to drag themselves to the polling place are concerned with protecting their own wealth at all costs, but not with the wealth of others in other states. If they get redistributed wealth from anywhere else, no matter if it might be freshly printed and capable of eroding their own purchasing power--and that of their progeny--down the line, that's just ducky with them. This is why Bill Owens (D), and not Doug Hoffman, won the federal seat from NY. Mr. Owens can go to Washington and "bring money back to the district," and "work hard" for his constituents in upstate NY. But when it comes to the parochial and local, voters want someone (like Christie in NJ and McDonnell in VA) who will keep (their) money IN the state. Very avaricious, and ultimately, self-destructive.

Posted 11/05/09 11:09 AM nowls Atlanta, GA

@jwfox1965 - Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, I realize now you were talking about traditional beliefs, not just religious ones. Gays have the right to alter the definition of marriage for themselves because it's a universal concept that doesn't belong to anyone specifically. Surely if gay marriage were allowed it would ruffle the feathers of some religious people and traditionalists. However, I fail to see how it would infringe upon their individual rights. On the other hand, prohibiting gay marriage strongly infringes upon individual rights.

Posted 11/05/09 11:13 AM ateal Sharpsburg, GA

nowls, I completely agree with you in principle, believe me. My problem with the legislation (and I admit I do not know everything about this particular piece of legislation, but I am speaking in general terms) is that legislation is rarely "reasonable." IF, and this is a big if, we could trust the government to not overstep their bounds, and we could trust the courts to actually uphold the Constitution, I would be absolutely fine with "gay marriage" being legal and in those terms, but it would have to be under the presumption that no church, pastor, or any religious figure be forced to perform the marriages if it went against their religious beliefs.

Posted 11/05/09 12:57 PM jwfox1965 Las Vegas, NV

"@jwfox1965 - Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, I realize now you were talking about traditional beliefs, not just religious ones. Gays have the right to alter the definition of marriage for themselves because it's a universal concept that doesn't belong to anyone specifically. Surely if gay marriage were allowed it would ruffle the feathers of some religious people and traditionalists. However, I fail to see how it would infringe upon their individual rights. On the other hand, prohibiting gay marriage strongly infringes upon individual rights." Gay couples can call it marriage if they want to, that's not the issue, the issue that many people have is when gays attempt to alter the legal definition of marriage and that's something gays definitely do not have an inherent right to alter since it is imposing their wishes on the rest of society. That's why every time language has been included for state ballot initiatives which includes the term "marriage" such initiatives have been defeated (31 out of 31 times) it should be clear that the majority of people do not want marriage redefined, however that doesn't mean the majority of people don't want gay couples to enjoy the same rights, privileges and responsibilities of married couples. Take the Washington State ballot measure which just passed, it was very specific in calling it a "domestic partnership" instead of a marriage. Personally I don't care about the legal definition of marriage and it wouldn't bother me if gay couples were included in it, however I do understand why many people do mind and I for one respect their wanting to hold on to the tradition and symbolism behind the word and not have it altered.