However, the current "purist climate" would have killed Reagan's nomination if the same standards were applied today.
No, he did not push the homosexual agenda.
Look up the Briggs Initiative. I also advise you to read "An American Life" by Ronald Reagan and learn that if we had treated him the way we treat our candidates now that he'd have given up politics early.
One, Proposition 5, would be the nation’s toughest anti-smoking law. The other, Proposition 6, would provide for firing teachers who “advocate” homosexuality.
The measures are similar in that they would mean more government (in fact, the author of Prop. 6, State Sen. John Briggs, said in a recent interview “government is the whole ball game”). The two measures also present enforcement problems–Prop. 5 because it would be difficult to enforce except at great cost and Prop. 6 because it could be over-enforced.
Proposition 5 sets out to protect non-smokers from the fumes of those hooked on the weed. It would prohibit smoking in nearly all public places, but the hitch is that it defines private places of employment as “public.” Shades of newspeak in Orwell’s “1984.” Restaurants would be required to have smoking and non-smoking sections. And, as with offices and factories, the owners would have to foot the cost for the “No Smoking” signs. Ironically, the measure would permit smoking in public auditoriums when a rock concert, roller derby or professional boxing or wrestling match is the attraction, but not if the fare is an amateur event or a jazz concert.
Short of recruiting an army of smoking police, the measure seems unenforceable. Smoking is already prohibited in many public buildings, but this measure goes well beyond, to restrict both personal liberties and private property rights. That reasonable smokers and non-smokers can use a little common courtesy in working out their differences seems not to have occurred to the proponents of Prop. 5. If it passes, it won’t be the first time a false assumption found its way into law and made government grow.
Proposition 6 rests on several assumptions. The two most frequently mentioned are that teachers can influence the sexual orientation of children because they are “role models” and that homosexual teachers will molest their pupils. Briggs told an interviewer the other [day] that “Everybody knows that homosexuals are child molesters. Not all of them, but most of them. I mean, that’s why they are in the teaching profession.”
Although statistics are not kept nationally, informed observers usually put the percentage of child molesting cases by homosexuals at well under 10 percent. The overwhelming majority of such cases are committed by heterosexual males against young females.
As to the “role model” argument, a woman writing to the editor a Southern California newspaper said it all: ”If teachers had such power over children I would have been a nun years ago.”
Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this.
Had Proposition 6 been confined to prohibiting the advocacy in the classroom of a homosexual lifestyle (and sex-before-marriage, “swinging.” and adultery, for that matter) it would no doubt enjoy much wider support than it does. Instead, the measure calls for firing teachers who engage in homosexual activity (something already covered by California law) or homosexual “conduct,” which it defines as “advocating, soliciting, imposing, encouraging or promoting private or public homosexual activity . . . ” It is that passage–and especially the word “advocacy” — that has generated heavy bipartisan opposition to the measure.
Since the measure does not restrict itself to the classroom, every aspect of a teacher’s personal life could presumably come under suspicion. What constitutes “advocacy” of homosexuality? Would public opposition to Prop. 6 by a teacher–should it pass–be considered advocacy?
The measure would require formal school board hearings if a teacher is accused. Under the present law an informal investigation can be conducted to determine the merits of charges against a teacher. Though the formal hearings under Prop. 6 would be private (unless the accused wanted them public), how do you keep such charges private in a small community? And how do you prevent an overwrought child with bad grades from seeking revenge by accusing the teacher of a homosexual advance or “advocacy”? Under Prop. 6, you don’t.
Will California rewrite that old line to read, “As California goes, so goes the nation”? Here is one heterosexual non-smoker who, where Props. 5 and 6 are concerned, hopes the answer is “no.” If blue jeans and drive-in churches weren’t enough to convince you that California sets trends, Proposition 13 should have left no doubt. Californians aren’t stopping with the tax revolt, however. The Golden State’s November ballot contains two controversial measures which, pass or fail, have the potential for setting more national trends.
That’s some pretty fancy copy and paste, but it does nothing to support your smear job claiming that Reagan promoted the homosexual agenda.
[[However, the current “purist climate” would have killed Reagan’s nomination if the same standards were applied today.]]
Which is exactly what I’m not understandign in this thread- It appears there are folsk statign that voting romeny in order to defeat a much worse candidate means disobeying God, violating our consciences, falling in the sewer, being spineless... (insert insult of choice here) but apparently there is some arbitrary cutoff point for compromise that I’m not aware of- for isntance it might be ok apparently to vote for someoen who supports gay rights but doesn’t support gun control- or perghaps gay rights and gun control are ok, but hte cutoff point for compromising coems at pro choice support? Or perghaps the purists think that lonly a candidate with ALL them oral values hat hey personally subscribe to qwill do- if one isn’;t found, then oh well- America ‘gets what she deserves’ and it’s apaprently ok to leave an extremist marxist in office.
In one breath, soem advocate stayign away from one candidate, but then in nexct breath’ suggesting htat everyoen hsould just vote straight party ticket line regdless if oyu know hwere the candidates stand apaprently- Makes no sense- then we’re told it’s our God given duty to ‘resist tyranny’ Yet apaprently we’re to ignore the current tyranny (evidently because ameirca is ‘gettign what she deserves’) and not vote and leave the much more dangerous current tyranical leader in office another 4 years- (doesn’t sound liek ‘resisting tyranny’ to me- Soundsw morel iek capitulating to, succumbing to- the much worse tyranny that currently holds the office- but oh well- symanticsw always seem to get i nthe way of a good argument I guess)
Apaprently allowing Obama to appoint another liberal to the supreme court sits ok with those who think america is ‘gettign what she deserves’ and we who worry about such things are ‘just being alarmist and shoudl just shut up and toe the extreme purist teaparty line’
As Mark i na few posts up declares, We indeed ARE o nthe cusp of a fukll blown marxist society- The view hereo n Fr seems to be so extreme as to suggest that Romeny too wants full blown marxism- it’s absolutely mind boggling to me that soem would even sugest such a thing- liek Mark says, Yes, Romeny is a ‘small chance’, but liek it or not *(and most don’t liek it and riughtfully so) it’;s the ONLY chocie we have- either we elect him, or keep an over hte top extremist marxist MUSLIM Sympathisor in office another 4 years
Slim chance is better than NO chance=-