Are Gay Republican Groups Gaining Momentum?
Still, Anderson concedes that the momentum is against his preferred definition of marriage. “Yes, exit polls showed the youth vote went for redefining marriage,” he writes. “And we do not naively deny that there are strong cultural headwinds against marriage.” But he is convinced the destructive effects of same-sex marriage will lead to a reassessment of its benefits, to the advantage of the social conservatism wing. “If we are correct about the likely harms of redefining marriage, then even a season of nation-wide genderless marriage and its consequences would lead to a reassessment—just as the harms of divorce and non-marital childbearing led to the marriage movement of the 1980s and 90s.”
Like LCR, GOProud is hoping to increase its clout among conservatives. But there are strong obstacles. The organization was banned from sponsoring the important Conservative Political Action Conference in 2012. GOProud will not be attending this year, either. “The board will be approving our budget next year, and it doesn’t include funds for CPAC,” says LaSalvia. “I have no plans to attend the conference.” Still, “If they come to us to apologize and ask us to come back this year, then of course, we would consider it.”
Undoubtedly, the two most prominent pro-gay Republican groups have suffered from their refusal to play nice with each other. As with so many small movements, internecine warfare has been as damaging as ideological opponents. “Its nemesis and counterpart” is how GOProud has been described in opposition to the Log Cabin Republicans. LaSalvia founded his group because he felt LCR was too liberal. GOProud does not consider same-sex marriage a priority, and thinks lower taxes would be the most effective way to promote equality.
Nonetheless, there are signs of détente in the movement. “Yes, the organizations are different, but there are areas of common ground, and there will be areas of common ground going forward,” says LaSalvia.
Angelo agrees: “The Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud are fighting for similar goals; we’re not enemies.”
Values versus liberty.
Once, the GOP stood for the liberty of the individual and the sovereignty of the state. Then Reagan’s winning coalition included socially conservative religious voters who tended to emphasize values over liberty. They wield a lot of votes. But they tend to alienate the more libertarian strain of conservativism.
I’m a conservative because I value individual rights and state sovereignty. Yes – I thought Todd Aiken and Richard Mourdock were idiots. But I would have held my nose and voted for them. But I still wondered how the GOP could nominate two clowns like that.
I think gay marriage is an idiotic idea. But being a states’ rights conservative, I believe it’s a question for the individual states to decide. In my state, I’d vote against it. But I have no beef with Vermont or New York for legalizing it. I don’t live in those states.
Enjoyed reading!
I agree with your beginning comment. However, it is the federal constitution that protects the gays or any other social classes liberty/freedom. Short of a federal constitutional amendment, I’m not sure that any states constitution or statutes barring gay lifestyles can stand, if ‘tested’ before the U.S. Supreme Court. Furthermore, I know that any attempted amendment could not have any constitutional merit if only ‘religious-values’ are the basis. The First Amendment which cannot be repealed OR ammended would bar such basis. I’m afraid, if tested, the results would be very similiar to that of Roe v. Wade.
Speaking to gay issues being ‘tested’ in the U.S. Spupreme Court, on 12/07/2012, the court decided to review the legal challenge to California’s Proposition 8, as well as another crucial case that involves the federal government’s sweeping ban on benefits for same-sex couples. How broad of narrow any such rulling will be is yet to be seen and debated. I think its assumed that a ruling will come sometime in or around June 2013.
As you said, it seems a social conservative segement of the GOP has suceeded in surplanting values over liberty – something the majority of the nation has little interest in at this moment, given the mess the nations finds itself in right now.
I agree with most of what you posted here, but you are not correct about the 1st Amendment not being subject to repeal under Article V of the Constitution. Everything in the Constitution is capable of being amended, except for basic House representation. Of course a proposal to strike out the 1st Amendment wouldn’t go anywhere, thank God, but its still capable of being amended.
The men who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights had no problem supporting the Constitution and the death penalty for both sodomy and blasphemy (only against the Christian religion). But, we know so much more today than they did. Anybody want to bet that our America is gonna last 200 years? Do I hear 20?
Thry also kept slavery legal. What was that again about their morality trumping individual rights?
Leaving gay marriage to the states is an untenable position. What happens if one person gets injured while in a state that doesn’t recognize marriage? Or a gay couple gets married in Iowa then moves to Utah and wants to get divorced?
1. “What happens if one person gets injured while in a state that doesn’t recognize marriage?”
—
Did you leave something out of that question? What happens? The person is injured. That’s what happens. He or she needs a doctor – not a legal interpretation.
—
2. “Or a gay couple gets married in Iowa then moves to Utah and wants to get divorced?”
—-
I am assuming they are married in Iowa & not married in Utah:
A. If they are not married — they don’t qualify for a divorce.
B. If they insist on getting divorced, they make use of the state courts in the state in which they originally married.
Conservatives often come down on the side of individual rights & state sovereignty. At least, that’s how I always understood conservatism.
That’s probably the worst legal intrepretation there is. It would create a second special legal system that only works that way for things have to do with homosexuality.
This is where “full faith and credit” comes in. States recognize each others laws with full faith. That’s how it works. Texas has no say in what California decides constitutes a marriage, and vice-versa. However, they must both be compatible adjucating dissoluton of marriages (and likewise, with all 50 states). It’s like this with all manner of issues – including commerical, real estate disputes, etc. Jurisdiction typically follows the person.
It doesn’t make sense to break the whole legal system to avoid gay marriage. Either national ban, or 10th amendment prevails.
Indeed.
“Full faith and credit” is vital to our system. It ensures, for example, that if the state of Maine recognizes that you are the owner of a property, or issues you a driver’s license, or pronounces you married, so does California.
Sooner or later, it will be there.
The arguments against equality for homosexuals are weak, and not proper for a true conservative.
There is the religious argument- but conservatives believe in religious freedom, so that doesn’t count.
There is the “I say it’s wrong, so it’s wrong” argument- but that’s hardly logical.
There is the “it’s against nature” argument, but that is ignorance about nature.
Opposition to gay equality only hurts real conservative causes. If nothing else, it brands the GOP as intolerant and spiteful. Who knows, maybe it tilted the election just enough, and we can thank the anti-gay god squad for Obamacare… a real travesty, that really does cost and hurt, instead of gay marriage, which hurts no one.
Unless you are hit by the catering truck.
Issues with hospitalization include next-of-kin issues.
With a heterosexual couple, if the injured person is unable to make medical decisions for himself (e.g. comatose), then his spouse can make those decisions as the next-of-kin.
But a state that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage wouldn’t allow a gay spouse to make medical decisions for his injured gay partner.
Ever hear of health care proxy?
Over a quarter of the states proposed civil unions that gave gay “partners” the same legal protections and privleges that hetro spouses enjoy. In every case, the gays turned down the compromise. They want, no they demand Gay Matrimony as defined by either a federal court or a federa law. This has nothing to do with gay rights and everything to do with a state mandated definition of a private religious sacrament.
Untenable? This situation has been in existence for a lot longer than you may realize.
Consider polygamists who immigrate. Their marriages are not recognized either. I’m sure there are legal precedents that deal with such situations, though.
I think leaving things to each particular state to deal with is not a bad solution. Or would you rather see a single, one-size-fits-all federal law to deal with this very individual issue?
There’s nothing new about some marriages being recognized in some states but not others. Different states have different rules on age of consent, definition of incest (how far back the common ancestor has to be), etc. Used to be differences on mixed race marriages as well. Never been a problem before, don’t see why it would be now.
I take it you endorse both incest and polygamy?
I take you have a problem with mixed-race marriages.
(See what I did there? The way I turned your own logic back on you? Tell you what, go back and read my comment more carefully and I’ll forget you made this dumbass remark.)
Your objection that gay marriages performed in one state would not be legal in other states is resolved by the full faith and credit clause. Marriages legal in one state have always been recognized in other states, due to this clause. This is settled law in many other marriage requirements, like minimum marriage age, marriages between cousins, and other areas where marriage laws differed between states. Leaving the decision to the states allows states that dont like gay marriage to prohibit it in their state, but does not prevent their residents from getting married in another state. There are similar differences between states in divorce law, but divorces in one state are still recognized in others.
Max,
I think you haven’t followed this issue close enough. Several states (about 14) were willing to compromise on this issue and allow gay civil unions (which would allow gay couples the same benefits of straight married ones). The gays turned them down in every case. This issue has nothing to do with gay rights.
why would gay couples want to accept a second-class status ? domestic partnerships do NOT afford all of the rights and responsiblities of marriage, they are a somewhat similar ‘marriage-lite’. there has been no good reason put forward, other than “i don’t approve”, for denying gay couples the same certificate of marriage that the state freely makes available to straight couples. there is a huge difference, under our laws, between a ‘domestic partner’ and a ‘spouse’.
the word marriage was more important than the rights that came with it.
the ability to disgust and anger as many as possible was the only thing many cared about.
Max,Thanks for your opinion, because you single handedly helped me espouse my point of view in those first two words. I am a conservative and libertarian leaning American, straight woman, who is Catholic, who also chooses to support LCR, GOProud, and other conservative gay groups that are on Face Book and other places. The gay conservatives are the most descriminated group in America, and most are way more conservative than the Evangelicals out there……These are good people, who go to church, who have life long partners, and they raise children, pay taxes, and have the same worries that most of us have. These are families that sit next to you in church and you won’t even know it, and I dare you “Christians” to kick them out of your church…..Values vs. Liberty. That is where the line is drawn for me. With Liberty all values fall into place. Without Liberty, all values are meaningless.
Hear, hear!
While there are still a sizable people against gay marriage, it’s not among people who vote Republican. It’s blacks, hispanics, and Indians (er, the ones from India). White single women absolutely adore gays, if the Republicans ever want to win that vote back, they need to be okay with them, too.
This is the same trap that we threatened to fall into after the election in regards to immigration.
We assume that women are these one issue voter. Do X and get X. That’s not exactly how it works.
Success has a thousand fathers, indeed.
Gotta love the Gaystopo pushing “normalcy” of their behavior as a social class.
So goes Rome, so goes America.
Gotta love the god-botherers who think their magic book has any place in political debate.
When Rome tolerated homosexuality it was at the height of its powers. It wasn’t until after the Empire became Christian that it began to wane.
May as well legalize bestiality too. Perversion is perversion and one does not need the Bible to oppose such sickness.
Having said that, morality is very much a political consideration.
So more gay propaganda and historical revision. According to Jeffie, one of the strengths of Rome was the flourishing homosexual culture. I guess that would include Nero who married a castrated boy. Heck, you can fulfill the second part of your desire to eliminate those nasty Christian bigots by burning them in the garden or throwing them to the lions.
The real howler in the article was one of the brave new gay Republican advocates saying they need to eliminate “the small group of hateful bigots” in the GOP. Christians and values voters make up an arguable majority of the GOP while gays are 2% of the population and overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Talk about a statistically almost non existent group demanding to set the agenda.
A third party is looking better all the time. The Whigs…er GOP are insisting on a permanent stupid status.
“When Rome tolerated homosexuality it was at the height of its powers.”
If I understand you correctly, you endorse crucifixtions, matricide, infanticide, slavery, concubinage, and mass muder and ethnic cleansing? They were all “normal” practices when Rome was at the height it its powers.
Additionally, Rome began to wane long before the empire was Christianized (which is a misnomer, as there remained plenty of pagans when the emprire fell). The Republic was short lived. And the Imperium itself devolved into such a despotic pit of moral and political corruption that the rise of Constantine was long over-due.
The Pagan world had homsexuality, bestiality, incest, public orgies as well as cruelty that was so deeply ingrained that most of us cannot even imagine. The rise of the Christian West took over 1000 years to develope. If you wish to go back be warned that you will also go eventually go back to a world where “tolerance”, equality, and justice are foreign and where violence, cruelty, and repression are the norm.
Wow, I provide a counter example for Barry’s implied corrolation between tolerance for gays and national decline and out of three replies I get two cases of False Equivalence and a strawman from someone who seems to have me confused with one of those irritating kids from that stupid Family Circus comic. Come on guys, if I wanted idiocy at this level I would be commenting over at DU. Step up your game. Or you could go back to praying away the gay and leave the grown ups to their discussion.
The arrogant stooge who talks down to us is the adult in the room. Not in any room I live in.
I’m tired of the constant demonization of those who oppose the gay agenda.
“What made Gingrich’s acknowledgement remarkable was that he has a record of deep hostility to the gay community.”
No, he never displayed deep hostility to the gay community – only to the gay political agenda.
That was his right and his duty as a conservative, and I am disappointed that he has backtracked.
What is the purpose of these groups? Is it to lobby the GOP on behalf of gays or to lobby gays on behalf of the GOP? I’m less interested in what message LCR and GOProud are sending to conservatives than in what message they’re sending to the gay monnunity. Granted, it’s kind of hard for them to make a case than conservatives are in favor of individual liberty, regardless of the individual, when CPAC excludes them.
What these groups are for is the benefit of their members. Just like Republican women’s groups or any other.
There are lots of gay conservatives out there. And in the cities where many of them live, they get a lot more heat for being conservative than for being gay. From other gay people, as well. it’s like Black conservatives who are accused of trying to be white.
Nothing wrong with a support group. Helps get the conservative message out and into the open, out of the shadows. Even with people you may not approve of. Support for conservatism is more important than sexual bigotry.
See my post below concerning gay voting numbers and demographics. Republicans often make the vital mistake in that they believe personal financial interests automatically make a person a concervative (ie a conservative is a liberal who got married). Just because a gay owns a business or earns a sizeable incoome doesn’t automatically make him a conservative. He/she might vote for the GOP for lower taxes (as many did in the 1980s); but once they’ve gotten what they wanted they revert back to the Dems (as they’ve done since Bill Clinton).
But the Dems are not stupid. If you really listen to the chatter, some Dems are quietly worried about Obama and the Progressive’s over-reach. Despite what the MSM says, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Schumer’s very public demand for trillions in new taxes will hurt the Dem’s brand going forward. It will only become a voting issue if reliable Dems threaten to vote the other way. I don’t think the rank and file Democrat lawmakers will allow that to happen. At best, it might embolden Blue Dogs to run again. In that case the GOP gets nothing.
The GOP would be making a huge mistake if they caved to the gay activists.
So you don’t believe in the right of free association. If CPAC doesn’t want to cater to the lavender mafia so be it.
Identity-group politics are fundamentally ANTI-conservative and have NO place in the GOP (assuming that the GOP still maintains any pretense of being right of center).
F*ck the homos. They don’t vote for us.
Not that I agree with paraphrase here, but it does remind me how much I miss Baker as SecState or Chief of Staff…
Golden days my friend. Golden days.
Besides the unneccsary expletive, James was right that the majority of US Jewish votes goes democrat. Though everyone remembers the insult.
“Golden days my friend. Golden days”
You mean the good old golden days of Jim & Tammy Faye and the PTL version of Christian moral purity or — the good old golden days of Jimmy Swaggart’s brand of Christian moral purity?
Either way, they represent about 98% of Christians arrogance and hypocrisy. consideration. I suspect that a good percentage of ‘gays and lesbians’ were born into Christian families who lived and taught their brands of Christian morality. Should they have ‘sacrificed’ such children? Oh, wait! Christians don’t believe in sacrificing animals and children anymore. So, what now?
How about the good old days of patient zero bringing the AIDS epidemic to America, gay bath houses in urban America with thousands of anonymous sexual encounters nightly and the spread of disease vectors. Or NAMBLA on the march and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and ACTUP desecrating St.Peters Cathedral and gay activists burning down a pastor’s house in San Francisco for speaking out against sodomy. I can go on. These groups are far more representative of the gay movement than Swaggart and the Baakers are of Christianity. Your quote about all the little sodomites growing up in Christian homes is a lie you made up or a delusion you labor under. Either way, you have no serious factual arguments.
hmmm…ya think that maybe more citizens who happen to be gay might vote for “us” if we weren’t calling them names and telling them to “go f*ck” themselves?
no
no
Homosexuals will not be compatiable with the socially conservative wing of the Republican party for a generation or more. And the homosexual conservative base is not large to begin with. It may be vocal and upscale, but that’s not a fair trade for the votes of the traditional GOP base that will be lost if accomodations are made for homosexuals.
thank you
It may be worth it in blue states where they are a larger % of the population and as they form families which will be under the threat of poor education policies, crime from minority groups, et al. They are largely net taxpayers (not the case in the early days of the AIDS epidemic due to the cost of medical care) and could be swayed with pocketbook appeals.
So be it then. Of course this is slowly being made irrelevant as the Left continues to settle these issues on THEIR terms and the electorate as a whole becomes more and more accepting of gays. Let’s see… DADT is repealed and won’t be coming back, hate crimes legislation. For good or ill has passed, ENDA will be incrementally implemented and SSM will slowly pass in more and more states until SCOTUS finally steps in one day (perhaps next year but i doubt it – too soon) a la Lawrence v Texas smack down any recalcitrant states holding out. So what will be left for social cons to fight to the last man on afterwards about this?
Demographcally, your post makes little sense. Gays at best make up 4% of the populaton (and I’m being generous). Of a voting population of 110 million that equates to 4 million voters scattered through 50 state. However, the majority of gays live in perhaps 4 metro areas (LA, New York, San Francisco, and Chicago). Needless to say, the GOP isn’t going to win Cali, New York, or Illinois anytime soon. If I am not mistaken, you advise the GOP to alienate its most loyal grassroot members inorder to pander to a tiny sub-demographic that lives in states the Republicans aren’t likely to win in this or the next generation.
It would be wiser and far more practical to force the NYC, LA, San Francisco, and Chicago metro areas to secede from the US.
The social conservative wing of the Republican party is a joke and I say that as a social conservative. It has no coherent viewpoint on abortion. Wait you say abortion is killing….no wait if it was murder as we understand it in the street fight sense then law enforcement would be easy and straightforward and this would not be the ongoing issue it is.
None of us would want law enforcement personnel who would prefer pulling screwed up teenagers off of doctor tables over patrolling the streets. You do not regard someone whom you would want to still pursue being a mother and living in a traditional family even after a first abortion as a murderer. The murderer goes into jail as punishment. Does a mother when she has married and have a child go into jail the same as you would a murderer who is still walking the streets? Look what I have done and how I live now is not a valid defense in a prior homicide. Would social conservatives want that to be applied to people who are living religious lifestyles after having aborted a child? Maybe some…definitely not all.
The Mourdocks and Akins of the world will continuinally get themselves into trouble in elections because they have not thought out the real implications of abortion law. They will choke on the contradictions and their buddies will insist we bail them out. Let abortion law be real, workable and not simply a litmus test of who is running society (religious religious or leftist religious) and we can talk.
The same is true of gay marriage. I was in favor of civil unions because I do not want to get in the way of people taking on financial commitments to take care of each other. With that said that was not an endorsement of homosexuality. Far from it. The state can not determine what is holy. Only the Creator has and the Creator has made what it is quite clear.
I wasn’t taken in by the Left but by libertarians (whom I no longer trust). I bought the argument that recognition or legalization by the state is not approval or endorsement. It is simply recognition of the limits of the state. Libertarians were celebrating this as a real breakthrough against religious beliefs so I know those people were not sincere. On the other hand I still abide by that.
Here’s the problem with Republican social conservatives. By making religious values a constant issue with the State you are giving to the State precisely the overarching power the Left wishes it to have. Since the state is not the Creator it ultimately will fail in doing the Creators work (unless of course you have a religious theocracy by what is the one and only true religion). Ironically religious faith has shown its real power when standing up against organized government. That is because it has then stood with revealed truth against manufactured laws.
So once again we come up with contradictions. If this was a non-Republican homosexual group self identifying as conservatives would this not be a problem with the GOP establishment? If this is a problem even though this is with issues that they are actually in agreement with mainstream conservatives are those positions now wrong? Should they stay quiet but vote against democrats or is desiring to have their votes at all wrong and they should vote against their own perceived interests and simply vote Democrat?
How about as social conservatives we admit that we are nothing ourselves, it is the Creator whom we listen to for how to properly live life and since among ourselves we disagree on religious belief and practice we have voluntarily constrained government. Not criminalizing is not endorsement and we are free to make our viewpoints known and be active in American life through voluntary methods.
The way out is federalism. Liberal states can legalize gay marriage, and the gays will move there, or visit to get married, while conservative states can continue to make their statement on traditinal marriage. Why should Alabama care if 2 gays get married in California, and why should CA care if gays cant get married in AL.
“In Washington state, Romney won 43 percent, marriage got 48 percent, for instance. ‘It suggests that we should redouble our efforts to re-educate a generation of heirs to the sexual revolution’s bitter fruits, who are deeply confused about the nature and social purpose of marriage.’”
This is really foolish. Who do we suppose were the cross-over voters? Are we supposing that young, liberal, MSM-loving, pro-Obama voters cross-over pulled the lever for traditional marriage? Zero chance.
What is likely is that older traditional Democrats for example retired age men & women, older union workers, and members of various religious affliations pulled the lever for Pres. Obama, but divered with him on gay marriage.
Those cross-over voters are rapidaly shrinking – the 5% today will be 4% next election, and 3% next election, and then 2% and finally they will all have died or been aged out of the voter pool.
I suspect many of them were also blacks, hispanics, and asians, who support traditional marriage, but still mostly vote dem.
The more basic question for the GOP isn’t same-sex marriage.
It’s whether it will make new groups that haven’t voted Republican much before–single women, gays, lesbians–feel welcome in the party, or whether they will continue to be treated with suspicion and even disgust.
There are more unmarried straight women in the electorate than there are gays–and their numbers are increasing rapidly. Yet the attitude I see from the GOP base seems to be that an unmarried woman with a sex life is a slut–even if she pays for her own birth control.
So we can take this one step at a time. Before worrying about any changes to the GOP platform, the GOP needs to at least act like it welcomes all citizens who agree with its principles on small government, a vibrant private sector, and a strong country–regardless of their own personal lifestyles.
Do you have anymore strawmen? And let’s please dispense with the talking points. If you have nothing more concrete than generalized invectives just move on. BTW, nearly half of the electorate voted for the GOP. Using your logic the Republicans should deep six the deeply held religious beliefs (that transcends mere politics) of many of its loyal members in order to pacify some spurious claims made by some Progressive activists. There are still plenty of Americans who firmly believe that sodomy, adultery, and fornication are sins that can lead ones soul to hell. Whether the younger generation follows those beliefs does not remove the reality of their actions. In short, people like you are demanding conservatives make accomodations where accomodating is an impossibility. If that makes you uncomfortable, too bad.
It is interesting that the Democrats make absolutely no accomodations concerning abortion; none, zip, nada. Where’s the outrage?
How does the breakdown of traditional marriage – the fundamental building block of western civilization – and the acceptance of one parent households – a condition statistically proven to lead to further societal problems – advance our goals of limited government, a vibrant private sector, and a strong country?
The destruction of the two-parent household by government welfare and social liberalism has increased the need for more social programs to repair the damage. Children raised by a single parent are more likely to require government assistance, to have lower educational skills, and to end up in prison. All of these lead to larger government and drains resources from the private sector.
“The destruction of the two-parent household by government welfare and social liberalism has…”
A social condition among so many others, not created by any government as you suggest, but rather, a failing of the churches and their flocks to live up to their beliefs. Only through the ‘consequences’ of their failings, does the governments purse become involved.
Zeke: I am afraid that history and reality prove you wrong. The War on Poverty, the rise of the welfare state, and the social liberalism of the 1960s all sought to destory the traditional family and all inflamed the problem they sought to address. Don’t believe me, go look at the government’s own statistical data.
Some churches do bear responsibility for not challenging the non-sense and for compromising their beliefs on the altar of public opinion but the primary blame lays with a society and a government that willingly sought their own selfishness.
“…the rise of the welfare state, and the social liberalism of the 1960s all sought to destory the traditional family and all inflamed the problem they sought to address.”
In part, a very small part, you absolutely correct. However, in the larger part, you are completely wrong.
First, during those times it was this nations greatest experience of religious reformation. Kids from traditional Christian familes were falling by the droves into the socio-polictical movement and churches began to lose their younger generations of followers AND REVENUE. Out of this era came the evangelical movement, the likes of Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim & Tammy Faye Baker, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and so many others in conjunction with the rise of black theology. Most all having eventually fallen from grace in one way or anther, in the public venue.
Second. No governments in this country has ever, by support or rejection, EVER been involved in any religions beliefs. That is left to the individual and not the government. The ONLY exception in history, has been the matter of Mormon polygamy which may well and correctly, fall constitutionally, in time.
It is the people and their churches who fail — not the government. The government only deals with the consequences of the people and their churches failures.
Zeke: Once again your post is neither grounded in history or reality. Even those on the left like Daniel Patrcik Moynihan recognized that the welfare state and the Great Society had destroyed the black family.
To make the statement: “No governments in this country has ever, by support or rejection, EVER been involved in any religions beliefs. That is left to the individual and not the government.” is to be historically ignorant. One only has to examine the history of Jefferson’s “Separation of Church and State” mantra to see how the involvement of the government with religion has changed over time. Since the 1940s, the interpretation has changed from one of acceptance to outright hostility. The federal removal of prayer from school is a clear instance of government involvement in religious belief. The new Obamacare mandate that requires a Christian businessman to violate his religious beliefs and support the secular rite of abortion is another.
Atheism is a religious belief. Humanism is a religious belief. So, is agnosticism. Progressivism is a mixture of all three – often with a veneer of liberal theology.
Faulty logic there Skippy, arguing from the specific to the general. Sandra Fluke insists that a Catholic University provide her with enough free birth control to get busy with the entire basketball team twice daily. Rush Limbaugh ill advisedly calls her a slut on the air. Therefore all the GOP base believes every woman who has sex while unmarried is a slut. Nice try.
If this election should have taught you ANYTHING, it’s that it doesn’t matter what you think the ‘reality’ is.
It’s what the media can convince low-information voters and voting blocs like single women that the ‘reality’ is.
Precisely. The battle is all about perception.
In the battle for perception, any element of hostility, “real” or not, politician or radio jock, aimed at gays, women, minorities, seniors, etc is a shot into our own foot.
‘k K, So how’s that meme going to change? The GOP and conservatives could build altars to Walter Cronkite’s memory in their front yards and all subscribe to the print edition of the NY Times and the media will still be a slew of lying propagandists for the left.
The article promotes several falsehoods.
First, GOProud was not banned from CPAC. Their request to sponsor CPAC was denied because Mr. LaSalvia publicly attacked other conservative groups and politicians such as the Heritage Foundation, Senator Jim DeMint, and Liberty University. They were not banned from the conference itself but allowed to participate as any other group.
Second, GOProud has a history of attacking social conservatives and creating controversy to gain the spot-light. They do not play well with others and attempted to force conservative organizations that disagree with them out of the discussion. A good example is their attack upon the Heritage Foundation and their characterization of it as a “loser.” They also “outed” a gay pollster who worked for Governor Rick Perry simply because the governor opposed same sex marriage. This action caused Andrew Breitbart to withdraw from their board. They are not supportive of a big tent.
Third, GOProud often puts their social liberal agenda ahead of fiscal conservatism, a strong national defense, and limited government. They actively encouraged the lame-duck Democratic Congress to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell despite the fact that the American people had rejected the Democratic program. They supported the Harry Reid power grab.
Fourth, GOProud is very active in supporting gay marriage. They claim to support fiscal conservatism and a strong defense but most of their effort is centered on the promotion of social liberalism. If you do not believe me, go to their website and examine their press releases. Then go to their budget and look at which efforts they actively support with the funds they raise. They talk a “big tent” approach but they support social liberalism and only pay lipservice to the other parts of conservatism. Note how easy it was to begin outing other gays who simply worked for people that opposed gay marriage.
Yes, by all means, we should split the party’s base in order to appease perhaps 3-4% of Americans. And yes, we should allow gays to re-define The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony in order to get that potential .5 to .6 percent of the electorate.
In a free country, the government should have no say in what is “holy”.
Equality, on the other hand, it can and should. Extending equality to a minority is not “appeasement”. Nor does it effect only that minority.
I live in a state that has approved gay marriage. I can tell you, in the past 20 years, we’ve had terrorists destroying our buildings (and plotting to destroy more), blackouts, crime, hurricanes, strikes, planes crashing, massive snow storms, political corruption, greedy unions, greedy bankers and brokers, excessive toll hikes…
The one thing that has NOT had any negative impact here at all, none whatsoever, has been gay marriage. In fact, it’s brought in money. We have been through S**t here, and not one ounce of that was due to gay marriage.
There’s only one reason to oppose something which would make a lot of people happy, cost nothing, and have no negative impact: Pure Spite.
And if you don’t think most Americans aren’t wise to that… well, you’re part why the Republicans lost the White House. The GOP is increasingly perceived as the “heartless” party by Americans. The fact that the Democrats are economically clueless means nothing- elections are not won by the side with more Nobel prize winning economists, they are lost by the side perceived as heartless.
The only real chance to save this country is to tie together the GOP’s superior economic planning with a crusade to eliminate the “Republicans are heartless” perception. That means doing the opposite of those things that cause us to be seen that way. And yes, if that means appeasing that 3-4% percent, so be it. And if we are such spiteful snots that our party’s base is split by it, perhaps we don’t deserve to win.
First, the homosexual agenda does not want equality. They want acceptance and the persecution of everyone who disagrees with their behavior. If they want equality then they would accept secular civil unions. Instead, they want marriage, which has religious meaning and significance. Mr. LaSalvia – in an interveiw with Breitbart news – explicitly rejected civil unions as the answer.
Second, homosexual marriage does have a negative impact upon society.
There is no point in arguing when people bring out this false argument about the “holy sacrament of marriage” stuff. It is a specious argument because we already allow civil marriages that are anything but “holy”.
I could get married to a bisexual prostitute I met in Vegas yesterday by a drug addicted ‘chaplain” in some sleaze joint outside the strip and spend the next few years abusing and cheating on each other. That is perfectly legal and recognized as Marriage in every state in the union so long as one of us is male and the other female.
Oh and gays have given up on secular civil unions. It has not happened because it keeps getting blocked. I think that all civil marriages are secular civil unions and should be called that. Marriage should be defined according to religious belief as it already is. The Catholic Church does not accept a civil union as marriage for example.
Problem is that has not worked. The public can’t seem to think past anything but “marriage is marriage”. Like most people here they think that only the government has the G-d given power to determine what is the “holy sacrament” whatever.
People don’t make Holy Matrimony “Holy”; God does. And if your regard for marriage is so low as to marry a bisexual prostitute in Vegas then that is your problem. I suppose you also b1tch about single mothers hooked on crack while living off of welfare and SNAP cards, not to mention their deliquent children. One act begets another.
“In a free country, the government should have no say in what is “holy”.”
What are you talking about? That’s exactly what the gays propose. And in New York you have civil unions, not marriage. What is being proposed is a state definition that will apply to Churches, which do celebrate the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Already in states like Kansas and Washington gay activists are putting pressure on private church organizations to accomodate their demands.
Otherwise, your post is full of non-sequiturs.
I have pretty much given up on the Republican party. For those of us with a more Libertarian approach there is no place else to go anyway so I can just sit on the sidelines and be critical of everybody which is not a bad place to be.
I think the gay Republicans are really in the wrong place, as many commenters here point out they are not welcome.
You are correct. The R’s are just the flip side of the D’s coin. Their constant wish to spend money, grow government and control peoples lives has, after 41 years driven me to change my affiliation to Libertarian. The R’s need to check their roots and figure out what real conservatism means. Get out of my life and out of my pocket.
“I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. …I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”
Barry Goldwater
Simplest solution: Get government out of the marriage business. No licenses, permits, blood tests, restrictions, or special consideration under the law. That also gets government out of marriages performed in churches. iow, your church won’t be forced to conduct marriages between gay folks.
reward: Smaller government, lower government expenses, more privacy for you and yours. More privacy and freedom for everyone. Equality under the law for everyone.
In short, if you don’t want the government intruding in your business, stop using the government to intrude in other’s lives. If you don’t like others using the government to gain special consideration under the law for themselves, stop using govermnment to gain special considerations for yourself.
Simple. Neat. Clean. Freedom and liberty. Equal consideration under the law. No muss, no fuss.
‘Civil unions,’ including church marriages, can be legally addressed under traditional contract law or under variations of pre-nup agreements w/o giving one set of Americans special considerations that are denied to another set of Americans.
Of course, SoCons won’t be able to see how easy that would make things for everyone, including themselves. They would rather use government to gain special considerations and benefits for themselves, while denying freedom and liberty to others. In this sense, they are no different than the left wrt seeking power and control over others. In this sense, they are no different, in kind, than the lobbyists and TBTF banks who buy or influence -even threaten- politicians in order to give SoCons special considerations denied to other Americans. In short, your actions and words on most issues proclaim that you really think that big government is good government. …except when someone is using government to take your won rights and freedoms away from you. Then, and only then, is big government evil.
What special considerations and benefits do social conservatives receive that others do not? Everyone has a right to marry a willing partner of the opposite sex – even homosexuals have that right.
In fact, people who chose to marry are often punished by the government. We are taxed at a higher rate. We do not qualify for government benefits or subsidies like unmarried couples with children. In fact, being unmarried and having children brings a lot more considerations and benefits than being married and having children. Please let me know what exactly I am missing out on.
You also miss the point that these homosexual organizations do not accept civil unions. They have repeatedly rejected them. Mr. LaSalvia of GOProud did so in an interview with the Breitbart sites a few years ago. Nor do many in the homosexual leadership accept the ability of churches to deny them the right to marry within their church – see proposed hate crime legislation.
The fifth column…now that we approach another time in our history when we may have to fight to keep our legacy, we’ve got an army of women and homosexuals.
Point #1: When you have a close family member who is gay you will once and for all understand there is no choice ns their preferred sexuality, they are definitely born with that preference. They don’t need to be ‘fixed,’ and they don’t need your approval. They don’t hurt you in any way so just butt out of it. You should not have any more say in who they partner with, sleep with or marry any more than they should approve of your relationships.
Point #2: Those who feel you have a right to judge others based on Christian religious grounds, you don’t have the first clue about Christianity. There is but one judge, God, and you are not him/her. Live YOUR life as you believe to be true and good and leave others to do the same. You will be a happier person and much nicer to be around.
Point #3: Conservatives (I did not say Republicans for a reason, although there is a sub-set that fits) need to base their platform on one thing, the US Constitution. They would attract many more people to the party if they would simply adhere to the original intent. It would also solve many unforseen problems within the party that detract from the true message. Case in point:
Q: Mr.Candidate,would you bar same-sex marriage from federal law?
A: Marriage is not specified within the Constitution so it would fall back to the states to decide that issue, so, no.
F-up Q: Okay, but what is your personal view regarding same-sex marriage?
A: My view, as a president, is that the duties of my office are to all the people of the United States so I will not single out a minority of people to champion or to denigrate. Thank you.
How hard is this to understand?
Are you implying that people are gentically pre-disposed to being gay? And if biologists were able to find the “gay gene” you would have no problem in couples aborting their gay fetus?
Because in your religion gay babies deserve to die? What religion are you? Why would you assume that it would make any moral difference at all if you could identify the gene or not?
I wont get into why some people are gay or not because I really do not know. I am pretty sure though that it has nothing to do with what the government says about marriage or anything else. Maybe some folks are worried that if it becomes socially acceptable their own inner tendancies or something will come out. Can’t see why else they would care.
Because babies are already being aborted for gender, and genetic defects.
Spindok trots out the old “you oppose homosexuality because you’re insecure in your own sexuality” argument. What a weak point!
It’s as stupid as saying that I oppose Islam because I’m secretly afraid that I myself might actually be a Muslim.
Which is why the Muslim Brotherhood stole a tactic from the “homophobia”-purveyors in coining the term “Islamophobia”.
“When you have a close family member who is gay…”
…you will not have the objectivity required to make an intelligent decision.
“…so just butt out of it”
Poor choice of words. If it were just a matter of what you said, okay. But these people insist that elementary school children be indoctrinated, not to believe that homosexuality is normal, but that people who find it problematic are abnormal. There is nothing special about sodomy. It is the essence of nihilistic existentialism, an extreme form of social degradation.
“Those who feel you have a right to judge others…”
There is a difference between “judging” someone, as to sit in judgement, and to have an opinion as to the choices they make. You have surely made a judgement on those opposed to homosexuality.
“…base their platform on one thing, the US Constitution. They would attract many more people to the party if they would simply adhere to the original intent.”
You couldn’t be more wrong. The people in this country are hardly fit for self-government, and you are exhibit “A”. The more people govern themselves, the less is the need for external government. This is a fundamental precept of this country. Homosexuals are driven by the sub-conscious part of their minds. Just watch as the same liberals who bemoan the public repulsion to sodomy wring their hands as other genies of the sub-conscious are unleashed on an unsuspecting populace. You can release the genie, but you can’t predict what form it will take, and you certainly can’t control it, any more than the individuals involved can control themselves. Not a people for self-government.
How hard is that to understand?
You advocate a large part of the cause of our nation’s malaise as its solution. You assert that God alone is the judge and then reject the transcendent moral code of His Word as a defining characteristic in forming society. Our founders did not agree with your position.
Someone’s child being gay is not proof of a genetic cause of homosexuality anymore than your child being a crackhead proves the disease model of addiction. Your argument is clouded by sentiment and emotion.
From your comment here to the Republican Party candidate manual: How to answer questions designed to trip you up. You would think that would be a common sense response. Based on comments I’ve heard and read, Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock and their many no-shows this last election day, I think they’ve concluded they own the Republican Party. I don’t think all so-cons are unreasonable, but their power within the party is preventing expansion and appeal to others.
http://exleftist.com/gop-stands-firm-against-gays-and-mormons-bolsheviks-seize-power/
The Human Rights Campaign (the Democratic counterpart to the Log Cabin) will not fail to obliterate the L.C.R.s credibility and show them to be the idiotic “uncle tom” hypocritics that they are. The LCRs are a pathetic joke and an embarassment to the gay community.Deep in slumber for eight years under Bush, and now they just woke up?
Quite a come-from-behind story, not to put too fine a point on it.
Ouch!
What all this debating produces is an example of one group, with one religious philosophy, attempting to exert its philosophical power and control over society, while their adversarial group is attempting to exert their constitutional right of societal equity.
Zeke,
You aren’t getting the concept. All heterosexual marriages are on one level only civil unions since anyone with a different religion would never marry through the representatives of another’s religion.
I wouldn’t go to a Catholic priest to get married but it is rumored other people are just fine with it.
The so-called struggle for gay marriage is the seeking of government sanction across religions and is in fact a structure that is actually discriminatory to everyone else. If a civil union is just an endorsement that allows for mutual legal and financial considerations between two individuals to be respected so what? It is precisely how I view marriage outside my own particular religion. Why? Because it is not myself nor the Constitution that decides what is or is not holy.
“…while their adversarial group is attempting to exert their constitutional right of societal equity.”
I imagine you meant “equality”. Homosexuals have equal protection under the law. For instance, I am heterosexual, and I am not allowed to marry a man either. There is no discrimination against homosexuals there. Additionally, there is no “right” to marriage. If there were, you wouldn’t need a license.
All opposition to homosexuality is not based on religion. Every society known to have existed held out a special relationship to couples who chose to raise children. Homosexuality is an expression of nihilism, every time society goes into decay, the homosexuals appear.
With all due respect, you and *Mr. G* totally miss the constitutional points of the debate. Your arguments are purely philosohpical, self-serving your own opinions from whatever foundation(s) they may have their origin(s).
Both equality AND equity are involved in this debate.
“Additionally, there is no “right” to marriage.”
Precisely stated correctly and so indicated as such by the literal language of the constitution — it didn’t dictate ‘anything’ to marriage as that is a matter of ones religion for which according to the constitution, no laws shall be made… which pretty much leaves a lot of comments made in this debate irrelevant.
So, we come full circle back to the constitutional issues of equality and equity. The gay community will eventually be granted both as intended by the constitution. Nothing involved in the gays issues threaten society’s life, liberty, justice or the pursuit of happiness.
Um no…. endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…very famous line and I know its not in the Constitution but we know it was from one of the framers. It also squarely places rights as not coming from the government but from the greater creation and rights are not lost or found by parsing sentences and saying I win. Nice try.
Seems you are conflicted. First you state a fact that is irrelevant then — you state a fact of reality which is correct then — you go right back to the irrelevant as your conclusion. The constitution is not on your side with your conclusion stated. Once again, at the sake of redundancy, the constitution does NOT take sides with anybodys religious philosophies. The constitution leaves such things to individual liberties. Your position and intent is exactly the same thing that our founders skateboarded away from British rule for. Remember that little thing called the “Church of England?”
@ Zeke: Once again you offer up an ahistorical argument. The American Revolution was not about separating from the Church of England. It has much more to do with “no taxation without representation.” You also fail to mention that several of the colonies had their own established [Christian] churches, which remained established churches until well into the 1800s. The First Amendment limited the power of the federal government and prohibited it from estalishing a religion. It did not apply to the states. In fact, the Bill of Rights were not considered to apply to the states until after the Civil War.
Now, are you seriously arguing that the Founding Fathers intended for the U.S. Constitution to grant homosexual marriage?
ZEKE GOES SPLAT…..The fact that Thomas Jefferson put those words into the Declaration of Independence is not irrelevant to the Constitution. It predated the Constitution and stated the purpose for which Independence would be fought for and then the Constitution would come to be written to create a functional government in which those ideals would be preserved. It thoroughly defines a right which must be respected and understood as opposed to language semantics which are fluid and can be continually debated.
Since rights are endowed by the Creator they cannot be created out of thin air because if they can be arbitrarily created they can be arbitrarily destroyed. Any argument about gay marriage is ultimately foolish. You can decide an arbitrary legal definition but you can’t say gay marriage is as holy as heterosexual marriage in the same way you can not say non-Sabbath observance is as holy as Sabbath observance. I’m sure if you are reading this you are squirming to find a Constitutional phrase where you can go sorry but your ideas of Sabbath observance are not found within nor supported by the Constitution. The Founding Fathers clearly knew they were creating a secular document, but not one to outrank their own religious practice. I know all about the Church of England. Sam Adams wished for a break from it because of his own religious ideals not because of what would be one day phraseology in the Constitution.
The break between theocracy and the Constitution is clear. You are clearly protected and allowed your individual AND communal belief and religious practice. You can not however force it on others. Gay marriage therefore is a forced recognition across religious boundaries. It is a violation of freedom of religion. I can no more declare a type of marriage is holy than I myself can declare it unholy. It is handed down through revelation.
Your position is inherently contradictory. If there was a religion practiced in America in which homosexuality was considered the highest form of holiness you would clearly see it as a violation of freedom of religion to force that viewpoint down every other religion’s throat. Since however you come to that conclusion through some sort of secular belief system you don’t consider it a contradiction or maybe you feel it can be sold that way.
I hate to say this but this article is just wrong. Gays will gain acceptance but it neither to the advantage or disadvantage to the GOP to support or discourage their participation in the political process. The gay community is too small, and too fractured and only becomes a force when it comes to identity politics. While I am glad to see gays standing up to Hagel and I welcome their opposition, I would not make too much out of what they are doing or how their actions are received.
“Are Gay Republican Groups Gaining Momentum?”
Absolutely. As the Republicans openly abandon America and surrender to the same “former” and current Communists as the Democrat party has, then this is to be expected.
I, for one, support the total decriminalization of sexual conduct and free marriage for anyone. After all, pedophiles, rapists, homosexuals, bestialists, polyamorists are all “born that way,” and it is beyond the force of law to change their desires and behavior. If someone really feels that another’s sexual nature or conduct has harmed them, that’s what civil court is for.
Are you being sarcastic or are you one of the editors of the new DSM-V ?
Or is he a ghost from the old Weimar Republic? Polymorphous perversity ruled the day, not only in the bedroom but in the boardroom and the chambers of government as well.
I dont particularly mind legal gay marriage, its their business what 2 consenting adults want to do, but one thing does worry me. Leftists are rarely satisfied with making something legal, they must make it universial and mandatory as well, like making birth control legal, and then forcing religious groups to pay for it, or forcing religious groups to hire gays. I would only support gay marriage if it also had an ironclad conscience exception, so no priest, minister, or religious group, could ever be legally forced to perform a gay marriage against their doctrine.
That won’t be enough, not by a long shot.
We need to ditch the entire politically-correct “civil rights” industry and go back to freedom of association. (No, I never said go back to segregation enforced by law, quite the contrary.)
Seems one venue already got into a heap of trouble for being unwilling to rent accommodations for a lesbian wedding reception.
If I knew that a gay or lesbian celebration was taking place at a hotel, I would take my business elsewhere. I wouldn’t tell them why, because there isn’t anything they can do about it. But I’d go elsewhere if I had any choice.
@ Kipling
I can certainly appreciate that you have your opinions. However, to state that my opinion is wrong because of some historical ‘interpretation’ you have is equally wrong.
You made these statment in your defense: 1) “The federal removal of prayer from school is a clear instance of government involvement in religious belief.”
2) The new Obamacare mandate that requires a Christian businessman to violate his religious beliefs and support the secular rite of abortion is another.”
As too #1. The government removed Christian prayer from public, government run schools because, of the constitution. The constitution protects ALL citizens individual rights of religion — NOT ONE OVER ANY OTHERS! Likewise the constitution state clearly that the government is to make NO LAWS granting any religion over other religions. The constitutional ruling you speak to was to keep ALL religions our of the government and government run entities — rightfully so!
As too #2. You have your facts a bit twisted but thats okay. If this gentleman represented a duly exempted Christian church with an appropriate IRS business exemption, then you would have a valid point. Otherwise, there are countless legislative laws he must abide by to constitutionally protect the individual rights of others — namely employees.
Anonymous, Zeke, or Whoever: Unsurprisingly you miss the point and the context.
The statement I responded to was: “No governments in this country has ever, by support or rejection, EVER been involved in any religions beliefs. That is left to the individual and not the government.”
Now, according to your own admission, the government has involved itself in religious beliefs. Prior to the removal of prayer from the public schools, the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment was not interpreted in the way you described. All of that changed with Engel v. Vitale in 1962. Prior to 1962 the federal government permited prayer. After 1962, the federal government prohibited it. Either way, the government was involved in the a religious belief.
Now, as to the current healthcare mandate. You conveniently forget that while the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” it also says that “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” If the federal mandate requires me to fund abortion – a practice I find morally wrong – then it prohibits the free exercise of my religion. If the federal government can tell me when and where to exercise my faith, then it is prohibiting the FREE exercise of my religion. I suggest you look up the word free.
To limit the “free exercise” of religion only to religious institutions is to interpret the amendment in a way that is clearly contrary to the intent of the Founders – a fact that can be proven by reading The Federalist Papers, Madison’s works on religious freedom, the early debates in Congress, etc.
I would also add that healthcare is not a right. It is not secured in the Bill of Rights and it certainly cannot trump a right specifically listed therein.
Thanks for responding in a mature and responsible way!
I would suggest that theres a couple flaws in your response. You are ever so correct in your single citation. However, to the best of my knowlege, there was never a prior constitutional contest brought before the Supreme Court thus, how the amendment was or wasn’t interpreted is irrelevant — government leaving to the people to decide until a citizen chooses to contest something, which in the case you cited was public/government run school prayer. Then, the prayer issue came into play with the Supreme court, finding constitutional merit to hear the case. And the rest is history of sorts. The high court can ONLY entertain a case that is brought too them. They cannot initiate a case.
“To limit the “free exercise” of religion only to religious institutions is to interpret the amendment in a way that is clearly contrary to the intent of the Founders – a fact that can be proven by reading The Federalist Papers, Madison’s works on religious freedom, the early debates in Congress, etc.”
The “free exercise of religion” is NOT limnited statutorily to designated churches. It is constitutionally protected to the individual citizen. A ‘church’ is not even in the language of the constitution. A church is a place where the ‘people of religion’ congregate. As such, the constitution protects them (churches) from any laws being made — to include taxation laws thus, they’re exempt. What belongs to God, is Gods, kinda thing. The tax code is even set up so that charitable giving to include individual religious donations and tithing are deductable/exempt — to a limit.
Healthcare is a long settled constitutional matter tested before the high court so I won’t attempt to delve into that one more than I have already. No doubt, until congress gets all the ‘bugs’ worked out there may be some further tests as relates to the latest PPACA reform bill. Regardless, its not going away though, maybe amendend from time to time going forward.
Engel v. Vitale is only one instance of government interference in the free exercise of religion. We could also look at Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing (1947) and Reynolds v. United States (1879). We could look at more recent cases. Your argument that no government in this country has ever been involved in religious beliefs is simply not true.
If the “free exercise” of religion is not limited to the church, then why do you argue that only religious institutions should be exempt from the mandate. Why should the government be allowed to infringe upon the right of the individual to conduct his business in accordance with his religious beliefs? I would also note that the exemptions to the healthcare mandate do not apply to many charitable organizations even if they are affiliated with a religious group.
Universal state sponsored healthcare is not a long established right. It is not found in the U.S. Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. It was not even a political issue in Europe or the United States until the early 1900s. Freedom of religion was a founding principle of our country and thus predates the healthcare debate.
A rather futile effort to bend a piece of steel back to its original shape without a source of some heat or one heck of a big hammer. You have defined ‘infringment’ to fit your self serving cause(s) and be dammed what any constitutional literal language may be. Understanding how government constitutionally steps in from time to time to “protect all citizens” liberty rights rather than some special interest group, escapes you. Abortion and gay rights come to the forefront because of discrimination and ineqaulity for one class of citizens liberty perpetuated by another class of citizens. When the underpinnings of such discrimination and inequality are that of some religion, it then becomes a matter of constitutional protection having to be reinforced by the government and or the judiciary. How would you like it if a movement was stated by some Muslims for adaptation to Muslim religious values and Sharia law in the U.S. Watch you and many like you, go runing and screaming to the government for liberty protection! End of story!
@ Zeke: Nice deranged rant but it has little to do with the point we discussed.
I think it is clear by now that your contention that the U.S. government does not involve itself in religious beliefs is wrong and simply the figment of your imagination. History – not me – has proven you wrong. Any restriction upon “the free exercise thereof” is an infringement. According to Congress and the Supreme Court, any such infringement must be “the least restrictive means” of achieving a “compelling governmental interest.” The very fact that two branches of government have commented on the question, demonstates that government has and does interfere with the free exercise of religion.
Abortion deprives a child of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” without the due process of law. It is murder. It is worse than murder because it is done for convenience and often at the expense of blacks and females.
Homosexuals have the same marriage rights as hetrosexuals. They can marry any willing partner of the opposite sex that they choose.
Do you advocate that the government is now the final arbiter of morality?
I would also add that your rant was a poor way of avoiding the questions and trying to change the subject.
Conservatives have LOST the war against gays. Gays have taken over Hollywood and used their influence to put cool gay characters in just about every movie and TV show. Every person under the age of 30 things gays people are cool and anyone who opposes them getting married are evil. Conservatives can’t fight against that. They need to give up on that issue if they are going to remain relevant on other issues.
Yeah, gays are cool, like Jerry Sandusky is cool.
Yeah, and your attitude is why the GOP loses elections. Gay people are not pedophiles. If they were then how do you explain grown men who abuse little girls?? Or grown women who abuse little boys?? Grow up.
Gay male pedophiles go through a much larger number of victims than their heterosexual counterparts.
Oh, and by the way, there are also lesbians who molest little girls. They are almost never caught or punished.
The vast majority of rapists are men.
Do you now see why your “logic” as applied to gay men is flawed?
@ Kipling
Religious intervention versus liberty intervention by the government is a lost concept for you. Likewise, an individual liberty exerted on others which create discrimination and inequality of anybody elses individual liberty, are again, a lost concept for you.
You offer simply vague concepts in search of substance. The terms you choose are very Orwellian. “Liberty intervention” is a nice sounding phrase. I am sure Stalin intervened many times in the name of liberty for the people and to end discrimination and inequality.
So the state must curtail my religious liberty in order to promote federal funding of abortion. How does abortion bring liberty to anyone? I guess, the pregnant mother is now at liberty to slaughter her daughter (usually it is the daughter) in the name of her liberty. What about the liberty of unborn child? Abortion was not considered a right until Roe v. Wade but now it is the sacrement of the social liberals and trumps all the rights that existed before.
Government intervention rarely brings liberty. How does the exercise of my religoius liberty infringe upon a woman’s right to slaughter her child? And, why must she demand that I pay for her personal choice? In demanding that I pay for her abortion, does the woman not impose upon, not only my religious liberty, but my economic liberty as well?
You have still not answered the questions I posed to you in the previous posts.
You continue to use your ‘personal’ religious beliefs as some matter of fact foundation to interpret the constitution and laws to fit your own cause(s). Very self serving indeed! The very same constitution that gives you the individual liberty to believe and practice whatever religion you wish, also protects those who don’t share your particular religious beliefs and practices –or any beliefs, religious or not, for that matter.
More recent abortion polling shows 77% favor general availablity and or availability with restrictions while only 23% favor no abortion or are undecided.
Your religious founded arguements back then or now, are simply without constitutional merit as are your arguments trying to justify your denial of one class of citzens their constitutionally protected indvidual liberty however much or little they may disagree with your own religious beliefs and practices.
First, please show me the constitutional right to abortion. Cite the appropriate section of the U.S. Constitution or the Amendment.
Second, abortion is murder. Not because my Christian belief says so but because science and the law says so. It is a scientific fact that life begins at conception. It is also a scientific fact that a person is human at the point of conception. Just like a cow is a cow at the point of conception. The law also recognizes that life begins at conception, which is why a person who kills a mother and her unborn child can be charged with a double homicide. According to our law, the murder is only legal if the mother does it or pays for a doctor to do it.
You continue to avoid the questions asked. Why?
Does the fact that a majority of people support something make it moral? If so, then was slavery moral in the South prior to the Civil War since it was supported by a majority of the people?
You should also note that the discussion has nothing to do with outlawing abortion. I am asking why you feel that I should have to pay for the personal choice of someone else.
“You continue to avoid the questions asked. Why?”
I’ve avoided not a single issue you raise. The problem is with you! Dealing with a radical extremist mind has long been of interesting study. Regardless of ones socio-economic or intellectual being, they all suffer from ‘common’ issues.
“…show me the constitutional right to abortion.” INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY PROTECTED FROM ANYBODYS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS!
“…abortion is murder. Not because my Christian belief says so but because science and the law says so.” DELUSION!
“It is a scientific fact that life begins at conception.” DELUSION!
“The law also recognizes that life begins at conception, which is why a person who kills a mother and her unborn child can be charged with a double homicide –According to our law, the murder is only legal if the mother does it or pays for a doctor to do it. ” YOU MIX FACT WITH MORE DELUSION!
“Does the fact that a majority of people support something make it moral? IRRELEVANT!
“…then was slavery moral in the South prior to the Civil War since it was supported by a majority of the people?” A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL EQUALITY AND INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY — NOT MORALITY!
“I am asking why you feel that I should have to pay for the personal choice of someone else.” I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT YOU DO AT THIS POINT!
There, I have covered all points you raise.
@ Zeke: Zeke, I thing you have run your course. Ad hominum attacks are all you have. You are so confused you forget your own arguments. Nor do you do well with reality or history.
I asked you simply to cite the U.S. Constitution to support your claim to a constitutional right. You could not and instead rambled about something that is not in the U.S. Constitution. Have you read the U.S. Constitution?
I think your time is done. When you can respond intelligently and in a systematic fashion, then we can talk.
Gays may make up only a small percentage of the electorate, but a much larger percentage of the electorate are made up of straight people offended by an anti-gay party.
This nation is becoming more secular and less religious. Deal with it.
GOProud is an elitist and racists as the good ole boys of the reigning GOP figureheads. They lack credibility on all social and political issues. They are the new gay circuit party organization. Their concerns are primarily about looks, money, blonds and social status.
Life long Republican here, my first vote going to Ronald Reagan in 1980.
I’m tired of holding my nose to vote for anti-gay liberty GOP candidates, hoping that they will do as advertised on fiscal matters and 2nd Amendment and other important individual rights, only to have them stab me in the back and throw my support in the trash by going along with the Progressives when it’s convenient and then spew their ignorant stance on gay citizens who are supposed to be equal before the law.
If the GOP concerned itself with true liberty and not “ickypoo” immature, adolescene attitudes about gay people, they’d get more support.
The Military people in the ranks have left the GOP behind on matters of gay service people DECADES ago, despite the General Officer resistance to it. I was in a rural National Guard unit and we had gay people serving in the 1990s. We had gay people serving with honor in Iraq the following decade. We knew they were gay and as long as they did their job and didn’t play victim or be drama queens, we didn’t care.
This reflexive anti-gay stuff has got to end. They are my brothers and sisters in arms. They are full citizens. They seek Liberty ro pursue happiness in a marriage. It’s time the GOP got with the Liberty Program and quit using God as an excuse to deny equal rights to their fellow citizens.
Supporting and encouraging monogamy in what is a promiscuous sub culture of society should be encouraged and not condemned.
Tell me, what makes a gay couple desiring to marry less before the law than a straight couple? If you say “the Bible”, you are doing it wrong.
The bonus is that they day you support equal rights for gay folk desiring monogamous relationships under the law is the day you defang one of the lefts leading arguments that the GOP is a haven for religious bigots.
The main reason that more and more GOPers are being more “gay friendly” is that we are tired of our family members, who we love, being called “perverts” and being portrayed as sexual monsters, when they are most decidedly not.
It is one thing to oppose a leftist agenda, disguised as “rights”. It is another thing to oppose equality under the law to folk who desire the exact same things that you do; a family unit with an adult someone they love, supported by the law.