Skip to comments.Republican candidate for governor Charlie Baker endorsed by pro-gay marriage group GOProud
Posted on 06/02/2014 5:44:46 PM PDT by massmike
In recognition of his support for marriage equality in Massachusetts, Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker on Thursday was endorsed by GOProud, a Republican marriage equality advocacy group.
Baker, who recently released a web video highlighting his break with the national Republican Party on the issue of gay marriage, said he was proud to earn the group's endorsement.
Im grateful to be endorsed by GOProud, and share their support for free markets and respect for individual rights that includes marriage equality," Baker said in a statement. "The work of organizations like GOProud, and the pro-marriage equality candidates they support, is critical to moving the Republican Party forward on these important issues."
Baker is seeking the Republican Party's nomination against tea party member Mark Fisher, who says he opposes gay marriage but wouldn't act to impose his beliefs on others if elected.
(Excerpt) Read more at masslive.com ...
Anyone who is even a shadow of a conservative running?
Baker is the best Massachusetts can do, I’m afraid.
Thank Goodness I don’t live there. I could never vote for that.
Yes. Scott Lively!
The Homosexual Agenda and the Pink Swastika-a lecture by Pastor Scott Lively
As for his "Tea Party" opponent, Mark Fisher, who says he opposes gay marriage but wouldn't act to impose his beliefs on others if elected.
What's the point?
A Massachusetts republican is known as a trotskyite anywhere else.
Baker is a RINO loser.
Scott Lively running as independent
Mark Fisher, a Tea Party guy, successfully got onto the primary ballot, which Mitt Romney and Scott Brown’s aides tried desperately to avoid.
I’m voting for Fisher in September and if Charlie Baker is the nominee again, I will leave my ballot for governor blank, as I did in 2010.
I’m not voting for these people anymore. Let Charlie get the votes of the democrats and moderates that he loves so much. Unfortunately for him, they vote for the democrats.
Regardless, he is still the least leftist person that has a chance of winning.
NO Conservative should support Baker, or any
liberals and FAKES.
The line is drawn.
He may as well save his money anyway, as he's already lost 2 or 3 times as far as I remember.
I believe Markey got over 90% of the Provincetown vote and came close to that in Northampton
What’s his position on religious freedom? Will he force Religious business owners to celebrate homosexual relationships thru fines?
I found just about everything BUT an answer to that.
On the issues
Charlie Baker Insults Social Conservatives
Here is a better path for Republican candidates: free marriage from the smothering tar pit of government.
Because we have allowed government to define “marriage” for its own purposes (such as taxation and regulation of estates), we have allowed government to define marriage as a social institution. That was fine as long as people in control of government were generally supportive of God’s original definition of marriage. However we have entered a time when a growing number of people in control of government are willing to redefine marriage for their own purposes, which in part is contrary to God’s definition.
Marriage is now far more a matter of politics and ideology than of private religious beliefs.
Therefore, for the sake of marriage as God defines it, it is time to remove from government the power to define who is married and who is not. Then gays could form whatever relationships they please but they could not force those who disagree to be enablers for those relationships. And we would not have schools that must teach that homosexual “marriages” are just as legitimate as heterosexual ones. Nor would we have owners of wedding photography services being threatened with arrest and being convicted of a crime for merely declining to artfully photograph a “marriage” they find morally repugnant.
I had been intending to donate to Lively, so thanks for the reminder.
Just donated $199!!!!
Let me guess; you’re all for “civil unions” for everyone, though.
Am I for “civil unions”? My personal opinion is that marriage is defined by Jesus as the union of one man and one woman. But if we are to live in a society with people who believe all manner of things, or who don’t accept there is a God, how shall we structure society so we all can get along?
Indeed, how many churches that hold to the Scriptural definition of marriage, will accept as married new a couple without demanding they disclose whether they were married in another church or in a civil union.
But what is to be done with citizens who reject God, but who want to be married? When marriage is removed from the realm of government and returned to being a private matter, these people can do as they please and it won’t matter. As of today, it does matter, especially when you disagree with how government defines “marriage”. Someone like myself cannot say “live and let live”, especially if I make wedding cakes.