Mike Huckabee.
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 don’t 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 it’s 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 ...
Carl DeMaio supports marriage “equality” AND supports a woman’s right to choose.
So much for him agreeing that traditional marriage is special.
http://carldemaio.com/issue/other-key-issues
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.
Great post!
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 don’t 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.......
No, not all social conservatives are fiscal conservatives. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Muslims etc. are often very socially conservative but always vote Democrat out of desire for government cheese.
I strongly disagree with that assertion. The founder of that Satanic cult was a pedophile and that sets the tone for the behavior of Mohammendism and its adherents. Since they spurn God, muzzies are by definition atheists and ergo liberals.
Gays have always traditionaly been leftists. This is such a fraud.
Which will always lead to immorality.
In theory though, they can always argue that following the GOlden Rule is good enough for them. If they strive to follow that rule, it i shard to argue that they are necessarily immoral; at the very least, it becomes ridiculous to argue they belong in the same category as child abusers and those who perform and celebrate abortions. Actually, equating atheism to sexually assaulting children is, to be sure, ridiculous in general which was my initial objection earlier. And would argue that same thing for, say, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs,animists, Taoists, pagans and Confucionists?
No, they can't. The golden rule is based on Judeo-Christian morality, which atheists claim does not have any basis to exist. Even if some, perhaps many, atheists do try to live good lives (illogically, based on their own denial of objective morality), the attitudes they develop in order to justify any kind of gratification they desire leads to the type of society that condones abortion, rape etc.
What about the others I mentioned, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs,animists, Taoists, pagans and Confucionists and agnostics as well? Are you saying they cannot be moral and are by definition in the same category as rapists, child abusers and those who perform and celebrate abortions? And that only Judeo Christians can actually be moral and create societies with good morals?
Anyone can live a life in accordance with the beatitudes, by the grace of God. Fewer of any those you mentioned are likely to. And I never said all members of said groups are in the same category -- but the attitudes fostered by the outlook of most of those groups, and atheists, will always lead to a society that accepts rape, abuse, abortion, etc.
"And that only Judeo Christians can actually be moral and create societies with good morals?"
Ding ding ding. We have a winner.
“Ding ding ding. We have a winner. “
Does that mean India, Thailand, Nepal, Bhutan,Sri Lanka,Japan,Vietnam,Cambodia and Singapore do not deserve to be called moral societies in the same sense that a Christian majority nation would? Or Iran back when it was still Zoroastrian?
I'm beginning to get the sense that you are not Christian.
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.