Skip to comments.Republicans retreat on gay marriage
Posted on 03/30/2012 9:53:45 AM PDT by C19fan
ust a few years ago, House Republicans were trying to etch their opposition of gay marriage into the Constitution.
Now? Theyre almost silent.
Its been one of the swiftest shifts in ideology and strategy for Republicans, as theyve come nearly full circle on same-sex politics. What was once a front-and-center issue for rank-and-file Republicans the subject of many hotly worded House and Senate floor speeches is virtually a dead issue, as Republicans in Congress dont care to have gay marriage litigated in the Capitol.
(Excerpt) Read more at dyn.politico.com ...
Are you sure you want to disagree with that assertion?
Do you really believe "gay rights" is a bigger issue than the economy?
I already told you, in my first response to you in this exchange.
To destroy the natural family and marriage is to destroy the basis of the economy.
Sure, let’s go ahead and take things to the extreme. Typical of an Arminian to make ridiculous leaps in logic....
So very true, dear wagglebee.
Thank me. I fixed it for you.
GeeOpie: What happens now?Scott Toomey: Well, now, uh, Ken Mehlman, R. Clarke Cooper, Meghan McCain, Mary Cheney and I wait until nightfall, and then leap out of the Fithcally Conthervative log cabin, taking The Party(tm) by surprise -- not only by surprise, but totally unarmed!GeeOpie: Who leaps out?Scott Toomey: Uh, Ken Mehlman, R. Clarke Cooper, Meghan McCain, Mary Cheney and I. Uh, leap out of the log cabin, uh and uh....GeeOpie: Oh....Scott Toomey: Oh.... Um, l-look, if we built this large wooden Rhinocerous -- [twong]ALL: Run away! Run away! Run away! Run away! [splat]
"I KNOW BUT ONE CODE OF MORALITY FOR MEN WHETHER ACTING SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY"
Taking over the Democrats would probably be more likely to succeed. Their leadership is the root cause of the problem, therefore replace that leadership.
THE FACTS (Read 'em and weep RINOs):
Maybe some here HOPE that the GOP will shift left and promote leftist issues such as normalizing homosexual sex. Maybe some here HOPE they can promote a candidate that will ignore the GOP Platform?
It will be interesting to see if and how the RINO's attempt to change the GOP platform to match the Progressive RINO Romney platform. I, and I am sure many, will be watching what they actually do, versus what they say or do not say.
Re: your tag line, you should give the following words from Father Frank Pavone your prayerful consideration:
I receive Father Pavone’s email newsletter, so I have considerable respect for the man.
In this instance, though, his illustration does not encompass the entire situation.
There is a 3rd alternative who is clearly and fully pro-life with the record to prove it.
The GOPe can go to hell. Wait they are already there.
“There is a 3rd alternative who is clearly and fully pro-life with the record to prove it.”
You are free to vote for Goode if you wish, but don’t fool yourself into thinking that such vote will limit evil in any way; if Goode wins 4% of the vote in OH and VA and allows Obama to win those states with 48% (and thus win reelection), Obama will appoint federal judges who are as 100% pro-abortion as Sotomayor, Kagan and all of the distirct and circuit judges that he’s appointed over the past three years, and would end any chance we have of overturning Roe v. Wade. I have no illusions that Mitt Romney is a true conservative, but I also know that he will nominate judges who are FAR more conservative than Obama would. Reelecting Obama would be the worst thing that could happen to the pro-life movement, and I would rather limit evil by supporting the one (very flawed) candidate who can stop Obama than to allow evil to triumph by making the (relatively) perfect the enemy of the (relatively) good.
At least that’s how I think Father Frank would frame the issue, and I agree with him on this. Others may come to different conclusions.
Don’t you imagine that quite a few of our little Republican primary voters have gay relatives - brothers, nephews, nieces, cousins, etc? Or maybe they have bought into the “equal rights” mantr? Nixon knew 44 years ago how liberal the voters are and pandered quite effectively.
I would like to vote for Goode, but Barbara Bush says no; we must stick with Mittens at all costs.
Although Barbara Bush is an old RINO whose advice I would neither seek nor accept, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Vote for whomever you wish, but don’t fool yourself into believing that voting for Virgil Goode will somehow result in conservatives being named to the Supreme Court.
BTW, I don’t recall Virgil Goode having this many fans on FR back when he was about to cough up his conservative seat to Tom Periello, much less when he was a Democrat congressman. I understand that it’s an anti-Romney vote, not a pro-Goode vote, but surely an anti-Obama vote would be a smarter play—and, unfortunately, only one candidate can defeat Obama.
Mitt appoints liberal justices ... according to his record. Pavone is wrong about the depth of Romney’s liberalism. In fact, a repub congress would oppose obama while it would give way to romney.
In short, I’m right. :>) (meant to be humor)
Drill here! Drill Now!
Mitt certainly appointed liberal judges as governor of Mass. when there were, what, 4 GOP senators out of 40 (or something like that)? I don’t think he’d do the same if he is elected president as a Republican (remember, Romney’s adviser on judges is Robert Bork), particularly if he has a GOP Senate, much less if he wants to run for reelection. But you know who we know certainly would name liberals to the Supreme Court and to every inferior court? Barack Obama.
BTW, I don’t think that Father Frank Pavone has ever commented on the depth of Romney’s liberalism; his coments about choosing to limit evil when faced with two imperfect candidates (as is always the case, since no candidate is ever perfect) was actually written several years ago. But I think that it’s important to differentiate between choosing to reduce evil and choosing “the lesser of two evils.” I know far too many pro-life Catholics who nevertheless vote Democrat, and when I confront them they will say “but the Republican candidate wasn’t 100% pro-life, either, because he would allow abortion in cases of rape or incest, so since he’s not pro-life either I’ll vote for the Democrat” (even if he supports partial-birth abortion). I am a no-exceptions pro-lifer (to clarify, I don’t consider medical treatment necessary to save the life of the mother that has the unintended consequence of killing the fetus to be an exception to the pro-life position), but I’d gladly support a rape-and-incest-exception pro-lifer such as George W. Bush (who turned out to be the most pro-life president in U.S. history) over pro-abortionists such as Gore and Kerry. While I don’t believe that Romney has truly converted to the pro-life position, I would certainly prefer Romney to Obama when is comes to making decisions concerning abortion, since Obama has proven even to the most naïve that he is 100% pro-abortion.
As for drilling for oil, I couldn’t agree more: Drill here! Drill now! Drill offshore! Drill in ANWR! Drill for shale oil! Frack like there’s no tomorrow!
The Republican Party should concentrate on enforcement of The Defense Of Marriage Act that Obama is illegally ignoring.
DOMA was passed with Bill Clinton's signature on it, so the Rats can't say a damn thing about it.