Skip to comments.The new GOP? Republican openly campaigns with gay partner
Posted on 02/14/2014 8:02:21 PM PST by massmike
A Republican seeking congressional office and touting a reform agenda has just made history by becoming the first politician on the campaign trail to bring his gay partner to the forefront, with an advertising film.
I dont see it as such a big deal, said openly gay Carl DeMaio, of his campaign ad for California office that shows him holding hands with his gay partner, in The Daily Mail. He downplayed the ad further, saying that its not really different from other politician hopefuls who show their spouse, their children, their household pets in their ads, the newspaper said.
In the ad, Mr. DeMaio and his partner are seen draped in a rainbow flag, while an off-camera voice says: He believes in equality and diversity and is a defender of our personal freedoms.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Down the gay rabbit hole we go.
My vote goes to social conservatives. No one else.
Reince Priebus vision!
Their “log cabin” is build of faggots.
I’d commit voter fraud just to vote against him TWICE!
this is how the future is breaking down.
democrats are the hardcore marxists.
republicans will shift into democrat moderates.
conservatives will need to be tea party repubs in order to be on ballots and have a chance.
the gop is in the process of becoming the boy scouts, the right wing of thge democrat party, you bet.
Ugh. Let’s be glad when he goes down in flames. And then lets throw Portman out of the senate. This agenda is getting sick and more fascist by the day.
Well, I consider Huckabee a total opportunist who has little in the way of real principles.
this what we get for decades of incrementalism from the left pushing republicans left further and further over time. we’ve got so many repubs who arectually moderate democrats instead of genuine opposition republicans.
and this is exactly what democrats wanted in addition to getting their long term goals implemented.
. . . appears to be neither.
Would never vote for this guy if I lived in his district, he’s flaunting his homosexuality in Republican voters faces.
If he were the best that Republicans could do in this district and were still conservative fiscally, and stated that he’s an open homosexual. I could almost accept it, but to flaunt his relationship in voter’s faces. No, I’d rather have a liberal Democrat.
They’re liberal Democrats rather than “moderate” (the undefined term with respect to the Democratic Party).
If someone is a genuine statist, you cannot count on them being a fiscally responsible conservative whether or not they are a SoLib or a SoCon. There is such a thing as SoCons who are fiscally totally irresponsible; why would one presume it does not happen in local, state and federal gov’ts?
As far as this gay campaigning partner goes, the issue is that his “sexual orientation”, or whatever you want to call it, is emphasized over his positions on fiscal spending, business rights,the war on terror,immigration and other key issues. Would this gay campaigning partner be willing to vote for someone who is actually conservative on gov’t spending, education, immigration, war on terror,business and property rights, the 2nd Amendment and everything else even if said candidate did not support state enforced gay marriage and adoption? If so, then I would say his private sexual life is of nobody’s concern. Of course, very few in the GLBT community would be willing to do this.
Neither do I, as long as he supports individual Freedom, fiscal conservatism and is against 0bama in general...
I wasn’t aware tubby’s social conservative credentials were in question. Wouldn’t surprise me.
Agreed 100%. Even if the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah had low taxes, God would have destroyed that wicked place anyway. Homosexuality and its close cousins abortion, pedophilia, atheism and unionism are evil.
Simpleton rules always lead off a cliff, but they make a few some good $$$ from the suckers.
Look at 2012
So-con Todd Akins.
Fiscal conservative Romney/Ryan.
(Actually, I'd probably not vote for either candidate.)
Sodomites stand in fierce opposition to genuine freedom and true liberty for they are deceitful and wicked. They seek to destroy the moral underpinnings of America. Without that firm foundation founded on God's Principles, there is no freedom.
If they are campaigning together as a homo couple then you can bet they support state enforced gay marriage and adoption.
Ask them their position on Boy Scouts/..
So now atheism is in the same category as pedophilia and abortion? It is excessive enough to put homosexual acts between consenting adults in the same category as sexually assaulting children, but now atheism is at the same moral level as abortion and raping children too?
Fair point. One caveat - a true conservative position on the Boy Scouts would depend on whether or not Boy Scouts get federal subsidies. As Walter E Williams as said, anytime an organization g ts federal subsidies, there are consequences to that and one or the consequences is that there is naturally much less freedom to operate as they want. The true conservative position on the Boy Scouts is that they would need to get rid of any and all federal subsidies and then operate as they which and exercise fully their freedom of association.
What are his positions? NO WAIT!!!!!!!!!
Except social conservatism and fiscal liberalism kept the south under its heal for a century. I still know many who are registered democrats but vote republican but only for social and not necessarily fiscal reasons. While they may not want to run high deficits, they are very much ok with “smart” and “moral” governance that helps the poor.
Never voted for a Dem in my entire life. I’ve always voted exclusively GOP.
But if confronted with the vomitous option of this GOP pervert on a ticket, I would very well break down and vote for the opposing Dem for the very first time.
That's a pretty tall order don't you think? Do you think this guy will not support the homosexual agenda which, by the way, has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with the violation of the 1A, 10A, freedom of association, freedom to do business with whom you choose, freedom of religion, and who knows what other anti-American evils the agenda brings with it.
Even straight Repubs are not fiscal conservatives; absolutely no reason for a gay to be.
You're either fooling yourself or you're trying to fool others on FR.
Well seeing that we disagree about the racial component for the obesity rate in Mississippi (in another thread this evening), it's not surprising that we have vastly different viewpoints concerning sodomy.
Simply put, a Righteous God destroyed with his Sodom and Gomorrah because these so-called "consenting adult" were committing that horrible, disgusting sin. And indeed, I won't backtrack one bit. Homosexuality, a destroyer of life as Almighty God intended, is every bit as abominable as killing babies. The Marxist homosexual agenda is totally on board with both abortion and pedophilia.
I was in that post asking primarily about your equating atheism with abortion and even more so about equating atheism with sexually assaulting children. It is one thing to say that homosexualism and abortion are int eh same moral category, but atheism being int he same moral category as abortion and sexually assaulting children? Seriously?
I donated to the BSs many years and respected them for standing up to gay activists.
When they changed the policy to accept gay kids but NOT adults, which affected very little, I bucked many here and decided to cut them some slack and still donate.
But when that judge forced gay marriage on Utah and those Boy Scouts came out to give free pizza to the newly married gays ON CAMERA, that one did it for me.
I always try to be reasonable but I have my own clear line. They were promoting perversion
And its really a shame. A great organization destroyed by giants.
Carl DeMaio is a good man and has a good track record here in San Diego. I would MOST DEFINITELY vote for him.
And as far as Southern obesity and marriage breakup rates go, for both of them you would have to show reliable, unbiased studies if you were going to try to back up the claim that Southern blacks are the sole reason why the South as the highest obesity rates and the highest family breakup rates in the nation. Particularly since anyone whose been to the South can readily report on the sheer numbers of overweight locals, black and white alike. Do you have any such useful studies and publications available?
I actually understand where you are coming from completely. My point was that a key issue was always whether or not the BS were allowing themselves to be dependent on federal subsidies. After all, here on FR, one thing that unites virtually every poster as long been the severe dangers in depending on federal subsidies of any kind, and it may indeed have been that the BS were no exception. If there were getting public subsidies, their hands were always gonna be tied until they made the commitment to be an organization supported entirely by the free market.
Homosexual behavior is an indulgence that is only possible in a prosperous community. And a prosperous community rests on the bedrock of the traditional family.
If civilization suffers too greatly because of family breakdown, many rights and freedoms will disappear, including any right to homosexual relations. The support of the traditional family should be seen as an act of self interest.
Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, PRO-GUN, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America.
Mr. Robinson begins his list with pro-God and I take it to mean that all of the other freedoms flow from that most important foundation. In my opinion, atheism is the path toward unspeakable wickedness including abortion, homosexuality, pedophilia and host of other evils. Even Ayn Rand, held in esteem by some here on FR, was an abortionist...and, of course, an atheist.
I'm with Clear Case Guy and will state my case: Without God and Social Conservatism, there is only liberalism.
s/foundering/founding/Wow...that was a very BAD typo, especially with Jim being a Navy guy. :)
The issue isn't that, its that big corps like Lockheed Martin are cutting off their corporate donations over gays(not allowing adult gays to lead the boys).
And BTW guess where most of their contracts are from.
So your take is low taxes? How about we just ignore individuals, allow freedom, and stop spending on gooberment services?
Fair enough. But the BS would have had to ensure that none of their funding of any kind comes from federal subsidies and that none of their funding comes from corporate donations from companies that rely on the gov’t for their contracts. If any of the BS’s funding came from public money, directly or indirectly through a corporation practicing crony capitalism, it was always going to be very very difficult to effectively justify denying membership to any segment of the population. I suspect this is why many conservative members of the BS failed when they tried and often had to leave the org entirely. Do you at least concur that as long as the BS were not completely funded by private sources and the free market that the issue of allowing certain segments of the population to join was always going to be a major issue that they would struggle with?
Carl DeMaio supports marriage “equality” AND supports a womans right to choose.
So much for him agreeing that traditional marriage is special.
Amen to that. Think about it. Without God, obviously we’d have no God-given unalienable rights. We’d have only the “rights” government decides we should have. That’s the way it was done all throughout history until our founding fathers recognized the “self-evident truth.” America was founded on the principle that all men are created equal by God and granted their unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness... and self-rule. No king. No dictator. No ruler. No king but God.
Without God, we have no life, no rights and no soul. The Marxists, fascists and godless totalitarians of every stripe want it that way. If man has no soul, then he’s no different from an animal. He can be bred, herded, worked and slaughtered like animals. Again, it’s been that way all through history. In our recent history there was Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro and a host of others.
Now we have the godless Marxist/fascist Obama trying to repeat the 30’s. And our younger generations were not taught the truth of history. They have no idea why godless Marxism/fascism should be feared. Forgive them father, they know not what they do.
LM is a private source that gets most of its contracts from the Feds.
maybe what you are getting at is that they should accept no corporate $$$.
Oh no, I think corporate $$$ is fine as long as it is money the corporation got from private, as opposed to public, contracts and sources. The point is that when you get into an issue of organizations getting public funding of any kind, then they lose their freedom of association.
Perhaps I had some misunderstanding about the BS situation in the first place. Was it merely a myth and a false allegation that they were getting gov’t subsidies of any kind, and that all their funding was really from private sources like LM? If there is reliable info on this, I would love to see it. I think the notion that the BS was getting gov’t subsidies is what really did them in when it came to enforcing Christian morality within the organization.
If something led you to believe that the Boy Scouts got funding directly from the Federal government then shouldn't you be responsible for citing your source of that info?
Not asking others to prove a negative?
I have never heard that claim before.
Would not vote for a homosexual. Ever.
Would not vote for someone that campaigned as a alcoholic or as a drug addcit.
I never had an opinion about whether or not the BS got federal funding. As I stated, I don’t know where their funding came from but I know the debate over their membership issues centered around whether or not they got federal funding. I don’t know whether or not they do because I have had a hard time finding sufficiently reliable sources that either prove they got public funding or proved they got no public funding. I have not personally seen any definitive proof either way.
I dont see it as such a big deal
Neither do I, as long as he supports individual Freedom, fiscal conservatism and is against 0bama in general...
I do. I will not vote for anyone that announces they have a mental illness. I don’t give a rats ass if it is alcohol or drugs or this perversion.......