Posted on 08/06/2012 6:59:15 AM PDT by scottjewell
When Democrats announced that their 2012 platform would include a historic first — gay marriage written in as a plank — the reaction from mainstream Republicans was near silence.
There were no statements blasted out from Mitt Romney’s campaign. The same was true for the Republican National Committee. Romney has yet to address the the fact.
The pushback came largely from social conservatives and evangelicals, who pledged to make same-sex unions an issue going forward and insisted the stand will hurt Democrats.
But the comparative quiet from party leaders would have been unimaginable even four years ago, when public opinion hadn’t yet shifted so rapidly on a signature social issue. And it marks a dramatic change among some of the top Republican donors and opinion-makers, who are supporting same-sex marriage in state-based gay legislative and legal fights, even as the official GOP platform will remain centered on traditional marriage.
“Most Republican Party leaders seem to have lost the stomach for this fight,” said Dan Schnur of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
This is what seems so stunning to me: In 2008, liberals like Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, and Obama himself all said they believed marriage was between a man and a woman, as Kerry had said on '04. How things have changed.
The Constitution does not contain anything about marriage in the Federal sphere — at all.
We do not make government smaller by expanding it to cover marriage. This is something the states should handle, period.
Social issues come in great floods after a few cracks appear in the social consciousness.
I don’t think everyone believes that Gay marriage is an important issue, but enough people think it is important enough that they network every story now. The fact that so few protesters showed up at the Chick Fil-A kiss in, means that this movement has only just started to gather momentum.
It has all to do with money. The rich gays said they wouldn’t support Obama et al financially unless they came out for gay marriage. Their real constituency - black Americans - are poor. So under the bus they go!
That right there may be the only way the black vote will finally be divided between the two parties.
I don’t know... Ethics and morals in the United States have been on decline for a long time now. This is just another mile-stone on the slippery slope.
A reporter could safely paste this quote into articles on any number of issues with no fear of being wrong. For example, is anyone in the GOP talking about Obamacare any more? Mitt Romney sure isn't.
Everything else, including social issue reforms, will naturally follow.
Mitt’s single biggest donor owns wedding chapels that perform gay “marriages” every day. Nobody is going to talk about that either because quite frankly most conservatives are pure coward.
You are right. Huge amounts of money are being committed by wealthy gays to pass the marriage law in New York and get this plank into the Democratic platform. Yet in the end the American people will not endorse this nonsense and it will hurt the Democrats even if the Republicans they say nothing.
Obama's stance on this has always been misinterpreted, IMO. The standard Dem response to an issue like "gay marriage" or abortion is to say "I'm personally opposed to it, but think it should be made available to anyone who wants it"; which essentially makes them a supporter of the thing in question.
Yes, under the bus they go. Says a lot about Obama.
The dems just want to change the conversation from Obama’s horrible economic record to gay marriage. I’m glad the Romney team isn’t taking the bait and are sticking to the winning issue.
“Most Republican Party leaders seem to have lost the stomach for this fight,”
Many Republican Party leaders are probably closeted homosexuals.
Yes, I suppose that is what it amounts to. And he probably ran in ‘08 with plans to “evolve”.
Indeed, and the govt should get out of marriage altogether.
“The Constitution does not contain anything about marriage in the Federal sphere — at all.
We do not make government smaller by expanding it to cover marriage. This is something the states should handle, period.”
Yes, all true. Only problem is as with divorce in prior times (say the 1920s and ‘30s) or abortion if some states legalize something, others follow suit and then as time passes it becomes a uniform, national thing. And then federal.
You mean then that the movement against it is beginnig to gather momentum, correct?
Nope, I believe we haven’t seen the end of homosexual activism. I do think that a big loss for Obama would put a stop to it for a time, but the horse has left the stable.
Too many people either don’t see the dangers, or they don’t care.
Ah, so . . . after the "dangerous time to be a woman" ad, one of Mitt's people said, "That's ridiculous!" -- but Mitt said nothing.
Mitt's between a rock and a hard place both on gay marriage and abortion. His actions supported both, while his words opposed both (finally, in the case of abortion; he was a latecomer). Working both sides of the street only works until someone calls you on the issue!
I guess you may be correct. I do think gay marriage is an important issue but if the parties change due to economic issues that is important enough.
when the enemy is destroying themselves, stay out of their way.
Why should they comment? a response would be used by the MSM as a distraction. The lack of response left the MSM to repeatedly state over and over and over that the DNC was endorsing fetish based marriage. Specifically homosexual based marriage.
You can make the DNC look more freaky and abnormal.
Yeah, guess Mitzi is following the old adage of “when in doubt do nothing”.
Unfortunately we live in a feminized homsexualized nation now. God and religion are like a societies immune system. Once the social immune system starts to break down, perverted diseases attack.
Yes, an astute observation.
THe Romans discovered that homosexuality and strong nations don’t mix. We are on the way to discovering it also.
The reason “conservatives” can’t resist this is that the destruction of real marriage between 1969-1973, and the resulting explosion of sexual immorality, including in the churches, makes opposing tax benefits and estate planning advantages for gays (which are all that’s left of “traditional” marriage) seem unfair.
If pre-1969 marriage were to be restored (permanent, infidelity criminally punished, no second marriages with a spouse living, no child support for “single moms”) no homosexual would go anywhere near it.
Romney will come out for gay marriage. Maybe after the election, but soon.
I sure hope not, but I fear it.
That is part of why Republicans will not win the presidency in November. They will not support issues supported by demonstrated majorities of the people because those positions are unpopular with the Left. Republicans would rather have the favor of or at least less opprobrium from the people who constitute the Elite the Republicans would like to join, or at least receive approval from.
HE ORDERED the clerks to impose it.
Mr. RomneyCARE supports all liberal issues.
Global warming hoax, TARP, and DEATH PANELS.
Mr. RomneyCARE IS the EMBLEM of the GOPe.
The Negro vote will continue to go almost excluively to Democrats even as blacks decry the homosexualization of the Democrat Party. Possibly it will cause fewer to show up at the polls.
Ignoring may be a good idea. After all, isn’t this more or less what the leftist media does to Conservatives? Ignoring makes what is ignored appear to be fringe and freaky and not worth addressing. Laugh them off as they have tried to laugh off the REAL majority and make us seem like a small group.Let them have their “cute” “little” temper tantrum and move on to the serious issues.
Agreed. The government should abdicate all interest in marriage. Marriage should be a purely religious endeavor. There should be no ‘legal’ distinction between married and unmarried. No difference. Everyone treated the same. Problems solved. It’s none of the government’s business - Period.
Exactly:
The rats are trying to equate homosexual marriage = civil rights, in an effort to rally dispirited young voters to a noble cause. They hope to get them out of their parents basements long enough to further the cause.
This is a looser for the republicans. Not one vote in the base to be energized by this.
And we must quit using the gay word and start calling it what it is.
The Democrats have realized that the gay agenda can be thrown out like little balls of poop for Republicans to step on, and if Republicans spend enough time cleaning it off of their shoes, the Obamatrama will get a pass.
Agrred. 100% a State issue, Why I don’t support a Federal DOMA. You can’t have it both ways.
Boy ain’t that the truth!! All we will hear about concerning Romney from now til Nov is “tax returns.” Romney lot the messaging war early. But, he’s inept so not surprised.
“You mean then that the movement against it is beginnig to gather momentum, correct?”
Like you, I HOPE that’s the meaning, but I’m not sure. If the GOP really does intend to treat this issue as a third rail, they deserve to lose.
Sad but true.
State issue? Why should ANY any part of the government (federal, state or local) have anything to do with marriage? It’s a religious thing, not legal or government.
Thanks for the clarification - yes, let’s hope, and yes, I would agree with you on that.
Yep!
State issue? Why should ANY any part of the government (federal, state or local) have anything to do with marriage? It’s a religious thing, not legal or government.
State issue? Why should ANY any part of the government (federal, state or local) have anything to do with marriage? It’s a religious thing, not legal or government.
That said, though--- and marriage or no marriage --- do you think the govt should renforce child support from fathers? Or should children all be assumed to have no right to parental support, and be dependents of the State? (At present, single-motherhood wedded to the State --- the "Life of Julia" -- seems to be the major alternative.)
I agree - child support is a separate issue - marriage or no marriage - and yes government should have the right to enforce from father - or mother!
But again, the government shouldn’t care whether someone is married or not - it’s just none of their business.
I told my wife months ago that a potted plant could beat Obama in this election but the GOP seemed dead set on nominating the worst possible guy to go against Obama, so Obama might just pull it off. After all, Mitt is a guy who flip flops on every issue, was the grandfather of Obamacare, who pokes the eyes of the conservative base every chance he can, and is a slightly less electrifying speaker than George H W Bush was. They are trying darned hard to lose this thing.
The Republican campaign planks, Domestic, should be jobs and the economy. Period.
The DemocRAT campaign planks are well known > squirel
The rats cannot run on their record. The Republicans need to stick to their campaign.
I guarantee it. In actions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.