Log Cabin (Homosexual group) Spokesman is Delusional

Newsmax ^ | Nov 20, 2003 | Marc Morano

[Aetius]

But Mark Mead, spokesman for the homosexual Republican group Log Cabin Republicans, believes that GOP opposition to homosexual marriage could harm the party's chances of keeping the White House.

"The past is a really good predictor of the future. When we ran a culture war campaign led by Pat Buchanan in 1992, we lost, and we handed the White House to Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton for eight years," Mead told CNSNews.com.

"So if we run on a culture war campaign, I predict that's what will happen again," Mead said.

Log Cabin Republicans are "pleased with the ruling" in Massachusetts and believe the issue to be "strictly a civil issue that will protect all families in America," according to Mead.

'Civil Issue'

Bush can win re-election if he runs as "an inclusive man reaching out to all parts of America," according to Mead. He said that misinformation propagated by the "extreme right" was to blame for much of the opposition to same-sex marriage.

"We allowed the extreme right to define this as a religious issue, and it's not. It's a civil issue," Mead said. He believes that when misconceptions about same-sex marriages are explained and the issue is cast as one of fairness and basic rights, the American public would support it.

If "you don't explain it properly and people think that their Baptist church or their synagogue is going to be forced to recognize a relationship they don't want, then we lose badly. It's really going to be up to us how we define it," Mead said. "If we do a poor job, we lose in the arena of public opinion."

Mead does not expect President Bush to support "gay marriages," but his group holds out hope that the president will decide not to turn it into a high-profile issue in the 2004 campaign.

"I think that George W. Bush watched up close in 1992 what the culture war campaign did to his father, and I think he is determined not to let that happen again," Mead said.

[Aetius]

This guy, Mark Mead, is living in a fantasy land. First of all, Bush I's numbers went up after the so called 'divisive' 1992 convention. Secondly, the major reasons BushI lost in 92 was the perception that the economy was still in recession, and the siphoning of votes by Ross Perot. Remember, Clinton only got 43% that year.

The GOP did not run a 'culture war' campaign in 92. I wish they had, and I hope they do in 04. Why not point out how the Democrats and their judicial allies are forcing unpopular policies on an unwilling public?

This guy Mead is typical of those who advise the GOP to pursue loser strategies in the hopes of furthering his narrow, far-left, radical agenda.

I just hope the GOP doesn't cave on this like they have on racial preferences and immigration, two other issues where the majority supports the conservative position, yet the GOP refuses to give voice to.

Oh yeah, it is inconsistent to oppose gay marriage but support the legal recognition of civil unions, or whatever euphemism you want to use. Sure the word 'marriage' has symbolic value, but it is the institution and concept of marriage that deserves protection. If you grant the same legal rights, privileges, responsibilities, and obligations of marriage to unmarried groups then you have gay marriage; you're just not using the word 'marriage.'

[Unam Sanctam]

If "you don't explain it properly and people think that their Baptist church or their synagogue is going to be forced to recognize a relationship they don't want, then we lose badly. It's really going to be up to us how we define it," Mead said. "If we do a poor job, we lose in the arena of public opinion."

Believe me, the homosexual activists are working hard and successfully in infiltrating all major religious groups and forcing them to change doctrines to conform to the gay agenda. This is a broad cultural campaign to impose same sex marriage in both civil and religious spheres. Just look at the Episcopal Church's recent actions.

That said, I think there is a libertarian argument against same sex marriage. Anybody is free in this country to shack up with whomever they please. The lack of state recognition of same sex marriage in no way impedes freedom of action. The whole point of it is to give state imprimatur to homosexual activity. Given that there are differing views on the morality of homosexual activity, the state should remain neutral on the subject, not give the state's blessing to it. Heterosexual marriage is different, since it is in the public interest for children to be brought up in stable families with a father and a mother.

[Lunatic Fringe]

This is a state issue, not a federal issue. We as conservatives encourage State's Rights. So if Massachusettes wants to make gay marriage legal, let them. Watch the migration to other states, and chuckle as legislators scramble to reverse the decision.

[longtermmemmory]

It is no longer a state issue.

[onedoug]

Somebody's got to stand for civilization, regardless the cost.

[longtermmemmory]

Log cabin republicans gigle when conservatives say "log".

The phrse "log cabin" is a sexual inside joke not a reference to licoln. Sickos.

[SAJ]

I'd agree with your position in a theoretical sense, but in the practical world there is the little matter of the ''full faith and credit'' clause of the Constitution.

Lawsuits will follow, immediately, demanding that EVERY other state recognise these abominable ''marriages'' ''performed'' in the People's Republic of Kennedy. And, Constitutionally and logically, these suits should prevail -- the Constitutional language could hardly be clearer.

This situation must be short-circuited; either Romney must immediately propose appropriate legislation or impeachment actions must be initiated against these 4 justices (one of whom, btw, is the wife of the infamous NY Slimes ex-columnist, Red Tony Lewis). Further, as unpleasant as it may be to a constitutionalist purist, the Regress must be strong-armed into approving the applicable Amendment.

[sheik yerbouty]

He's been poking around those Lincoln Logs for too long..

[longtermmemmory]

They will try to do what they did in CT. A homosexual Vermont civil union test case was "set up". The homosexuals demanded FFC for the civil union. The CT (and GA) courts said no. To end a vermont civil union they had to go back to vermont.

The will try and backdoor (sexual titilation alert) though derivative actions such as probate and divorce. It is about the sodomizing of society. (sexual titilation alert II)

[SAJ]

Spot on. That's exactly the methodology that will be applied.

[The_Pickle]

It is a Federal Issue as the United States Constitution demands that all States give full credence and recognition to the Laws of the other States. A Homosexual couple. legally "married" in Massachusetts must, according the to the US Constitution, be given the same rights and privledges in every other State in the Union.

This and this alone makes it a national issue requiring, in my view, either a supreme court ruling defining marriage in set terms (not open to interpretation by lower courts) or a Constitutional amendment, ratified by the States, doing the same.

[Aetius]

What you say might have some merit if it were not for left-wing federal judges who will force it on other states. Sooner or later, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act will be challenged, and sooner or later a liberal appellate court will tell, for example, that New Hampshire must recognize Massachusetts' gay marriages regardless of the DOFAct and state bans on gay marriage.

That is why it is a disingenuous and phony position that at least 6 of the Democratic candidates have taken. They say it should be left up to the states, while they know that the leftist judges they would appoint would most certainly take away that option.

While I oppose gay marriage for religious and cultural reasons anywhere in the nation, on a practical level I could go along with what you say if what you say were practical. But with liberal judges it is not.

[HitmanLV]

This is a state issue, not a federal issue. We as conservatives encourage State's Rights. So if Massachusettes wants to make gay marriage legal, let them.

There is one problem with your analysis.

It's wrong.

The full faith and credit clause in the US Constitution means that when one state recognizes something like marriage, all of the other 49 have to recognize it, also.

People don't get a new marriage license when they move to a different state. Married in one state means married in all states - all states recognize the union, as does the Fed Gov for tax purposes, etc.

So when a homosexual married couple moves from Mass to your home state, guess what: they are married.

While I agree in the concept of state's rights, that's not a blanket license for the states to get loopy.

[HitmanLV]

Read my 'Full Faith & Credit' analysis above to see exactly why one renegade state refefining marriage has a national implication.