Skip to comments.Changes to GOPís Same-Sex Marriage Plank Fail
Posted on 08/23/2012 7:05:45 AM PDT by scottjewell
Two longshot efforts to alter the Republican Partys official position on same-sex marriage failed Tuesday morning.
Republicans drafting the partys platform in Tampa rejected the pair of amendments, but each found some support among the delegates.
The first, proposed by Rhode Island delegate Barbara Fenton, called for ending government-recognized marriage and replacing it with civil unions for both homosexual and heterosexual couples.
... Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, a delegate from Louisiana, opposed the measure.
This would move us away from a party that recognizes the benefits that marriage extends to a society, Mr. Perkins said. We recognize nature, we recognize history, that nature is the union of one man and one woman.
The committee backed Mr. Perkinss position, defeating the amendment on a voice vote.
Another amendment, proposed by Pat Kerby from Nevada, would have added support for civil unions for same-sex couples to the platform...
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
Party planks don’t mean much.
The way this snippet of the article is written and I don't doubt the rest of it as well, it infers that there is or could be equal numbers represented. The sad fact for the media and small pro-gay contingent is, they have no sizable majority on any committee. What they do have is a larger representation in the media and therefore even get noticed.
No right thinking Republican is in favor of recognizing "gay unions" of any sort and those favoring anything like it, have no majority of those voted by their states to represent the "people's voice" throughout the land.
Considering the fact that they patted themselves on the back for a strong border control stance in 2008 just days before Mr Amnesty was nominated, the plank obviously doesn’t mean squat. And this time there’s Mitt.
The GOP is playing hacky sack in a minefield and the wrong step is a matter of when, not if.
The union could come with things like implied power of attorney and certain tax benefits similar to marriage in some respects, but different in others. This way, marriage stays marriage (life long union between one man and one woman) and is designed to be the foundation of a family, and other folks not interested in that arrangement can still face life's challenges as part of a team rather than alone (and are thus less likely to end up on public assistance). Everyone wins.
So long as civil unions are considered same sex “marriage” for gay people, this pointless battle over the word “marriage” will never end.
Excellent clarifications. Thanks!
So what do you favor, a party that elects someone who endorses Amnesty then gets shut down and those voting along with him are no longer in office, or is there another party out there with a ghost of a chance of becoming anything and by so doing, re-electing Obama?
Good for the GOP.
Actually good for the few real conservatives like Tony Perkins for standing up and insisting that the Party at least continue appear actually, you know, conservative.
Yeah, I guess words don't either.
This makes perfect sense. After all, the homosexual activists started this 'marriage' fight because of the fact that their 'partners' were not allowed to visit them in the hospital and make decisions for them, if the family of the sick partner didn't agree. There were always legal avenues to get what the homosexuals wanted, but their activists wanted to destroy the entire idea of marriage as we know it, so they've framed their fight as a 'civil rights' struggle.
As you mentioned in the first paragraph of your original post, the union could be between any two persons, and the idea of being able to do so to help economically is a great idea. There would be a steep educational curve, however, to define these 'civil unions' in a way that doesn't involve sexual identity. I think, once understood, they'd be very well received. They would be especially useful for older people who may need to join forces to be able to survive on limited incomes.