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 ...
The Sit-Down-When-They-Pee-GOP-E strikes again!
It only works because most of said congressmen couldn't give a rip about their base, or principle, or their own oaths. So, they're vulnerable. Which is their own fault.
If so, isn't that a little gullible?
If you'd care to issue an apology for calling me "ignorant" and a "leftist" without justification, I'd accept it.
Gullible? No. It’s obvious that the Republicans are not going to do what it is going to take to protect marriage and the natural family.
I would say that the gullible ones are those who are still thinking that the Republican Party is much of anything but a false flag operation these days. They talk the talk, once in awhile, mainly during elections, but the don’t walk the walk.
You are demonstrating an amazing ability to avoid the subject of our conversation.
My initial comments extended solely to the content of a news article -- which I identified as fundamentally dishonest reporting and rather brazen propaganda.
So far, you have accused me of being "ignorant" and a "leftist" -- while expressing a voluble and profound distrust of Republican legislators -- but have yet to address my assessment of the news article. Or apologize for slandering me without justification.
I agree, there is much defeatist premised propaganda. Regardless, the merits of the contention of the article, the issues underlying it remain a real clear and present danger to the Republic.
I agree, the article stinks; however, it does provide a springboard from which the issues get discussed.
You: the economy is a bigger issue than "gay rights". To which, I'd wager that most of us would agree.
Me: What folks like yourself ignore, or are simply ignorant of, is that the natural family is the very basis for economics. It's even the root of the etymology of the very word economics.
Money problems are the symptom, not the disease. The destruction of the basic unit of our civilization, the family, is the disease.
And, like leftists, y'all just want us to blow that off as unimportant.
Digging down to why that is might be interesting, although I could make a pretty good guess if I was so inclined.
47 posted on Friday, March 30, 2012 6:56:45 PM by EternalVigilance
I stand by my response.
Have you found any historians who’ve tracked the “Progressives” hidden in the GOP since the progressive movement began?
If it’s not been done before, I’d be surprised. The case made would be that the GOP progs have long been the central force who’ve guided the incremental compromises with the demands of the radical Left. The undermining of the constitution by infiltrating every American institution is what they’ve been seeding incrementally over more than a century.
Because it is coming into full bloom now they are much less incremental in achieving their gains. No more two steps forward, one step back if they can get away with 3 and 4 steps they go for it.
They are still somewhat shy of bragging about their achievement openly. Some brag privately I have no doubt.(Pelosi’s “you can’t be serious” was a peek at their wish to be open. But she’s a Dem, and radical at that, so it was part of the game. When a pubbie starts saying things like that, it will be a sign that they believe that the constitutional republic is dead).
Anyway, I know you’ve been working hard at awakening people to the political reality. I figured that if anyone had read a theory at how it is the so-called moderate GOP who pose the greatest threat to conservative unity, you would have.
I can’t think of any such analysis off the top of my head. Sorry. I’ll look around, though.
But frankly, I think it’s self-professed conservatives who keep compromising principle who constitution the biggest obstacle to the restoration of our republic. Starting with most of the so-called “leaders.”
That compromise makes true “unity” impossible, by the way, because the only true unity is around principle, not parties, and not personalities.
If there is an appearance of unity, but it is not around principle, it is inevitably short-lived, and only leads to more destruction and division in the end.
Agreed. There are distinctly different types of conservative. The ones who back principles are mixed up with the ones who want to protect what they have and the ones who want to be left alone. That mixing leads to compromises. Not all compromises are bad things because a decision needs to be made when circumstances causes principles to come into conflict. Just as morality is indeed relative depending upon which moral precept has higher authority under special circumstances. At those times we seek guidance. The bad form of compromise comes when there are actors with hidden agendas and they are either in authority or their sociopathy gives them skills to mislead the group.
IOW, I agree that we’ve been compromised right out of our socks, but it’s happened over a very long time. It was too easy for the evil because they too easily hide among the sheep. They were very good at deflecting suspicions and turning the tables on those who were wary. The type of conservatives who are afraid of rocking the boat usually had the most money (to lose) and influence, and that type almost always side with the cooler heads. You’re seeing it now in the rush to back Romney.
And in that you have to give a nod to the progs hiding out in the GOP — they have been great at playing it cool in public. (The only time they get ferocious is when a principled conservative confronts them; and then they’ll get very hostile but only if it is in private or under controlled circumstances. I bet you’ve been on the receiving end of such treatment more than once.)
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.
I think gays make up about 5 percent of the population. Figure Democrats will get the largest percentage of that demographic, leaving not much for Republicans to pander for. On the other hand, Democrats have managed to attack Catholics, many of whom hold conservative values, like the days of Reagan when much of the moral majority were conservative Democrats in the South. We need that demographic far more than we need a very small percentage of gays, who probably can’t do anything to negatively impact us. Think about it. Spread that fraction of a small fraction out across the country. It is better to stick to conservative principles that will energize conservatives, especially with Romney running. ...If my language, “perverts,” offends family members, I can only hope that they love this country enough understand that the gay agenda is far more militant than a little name calling, name calling I think aptly defines homosexual activity.
Especially when the candidate is wobbly on the issue. He has moved back and forth across the line, and where he will go with this cannot be predicted.
Maybe it’s because the GOP has characters like David Dreier in leadership positions.
GOP = Gay Old Party.
“Maybe... because it has no business being litigated in the Capitol? Marriage is a state issue, it’s always been a state issue and should stay a state issue.”
Oh? And when is the last time you heard of a contract becoming invalid because you moved to another State?
You need to look up the The Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, Section 1 and see how that lines up with your state-issue theory.
Now the party of Sodomy? Why even vote (R) when they’re just DEMs in red.
Then add in the Department of Education and we see a progressive trifecta
Not enforcing immigration laws is an attempt to seal the deal for the communists.
We see diminished State's rights, Mob rules, and a growing brainwashed young government educated electorate as a result of this 'progress'
Debt is a symptom. These RINO tools and their useful idiots that want to abandon the 'moral issues' and focus on balancing the checkbook miss the boat completely.
The moral issues are the ONLY thing we have left holding up the Republic and keeping in check the government.
Both parties have accepted in principle the federalization of public education. Look at the mess called NCLB.
Do I have to?
YUP -we got some work to do AND Romney will do nothing. It will have to be at the Local, State, and Congressional levels in addition to the Supreme Court...
All the monies being used to market Romney would be better spent at the local and State levels in addition to being better spent support legal challenges...
...rather than marketing Romney we should be marketing Conservatism, and the Republican form of government etcetera. Instead of removing the throne that has evolved in Washington, some seem more concerned with putting 'our' king in place.
this is politico spining homosexual conduct as normal.
The fact is the federal marriage amendment is not dependent on a rino like romney.
A republican house and a 61 senate majority will push the federal marriage amendment over the top.
The fight IS at the federal level and you suggest we win by retreating to the States -what next retreating to the towns, then retreating to our places of worship and finally our homes? When will YOU wake up to what is going on?
We conservatives must succeed if our country is to survive and success is NOT about retreat and compromise! What worked for Reagan was promoting a correct understanding of what it means to be a Republic and what limited government is all about (not JUST a balanced budget); but a principled position, a clarion call that our primary goal as patriots is to defend the people against the encroachments of big government.
If the advocates of the homosexual agenda want to use and expand the power of the government at the federal level to impose the normalcy of homosexual sex upon the people and we proclaim we represent those that defend against this, WE WILL WIN at the polls and we will return our country back to the people!
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.