Posted on 05/12/2012 7:44:19 AM PDT by markomalley
A memo sent out by a Republican pollster has been making the rounds online for its conclusion that the party needs to embrace gay marriage as part of its platform because of recent trends showing increased support for this important social issue. Jan van Lohuizen, who worked as a pollster for George W. Bush in 2004, made the case that the GOP should be fighting for gay marriage as a conservative issue, by emphasizing that “freedom means freedom for everyone.”
The memo contains polling data showing that not only is support of gay marriage steadily increasing with the American people at large, but that a majority of Republicans now support “extending basic legal protections to gays and lesbians” like the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and hospital visitation rights for gay and lesbian partners. Van Lohuizen stresses that this position does not mean gays and lesbians would be given special treatment, but instead ensures they are given the same protections under the law as everyone else.
“People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to gay and lesbian couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law. People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits.”
He also explains how the GOP can frame support of gay marriage as a conservative issue.
“As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.”
“If the G.O.P. bscks homosexual ‘marriage’, I am out of the
Republican Party.”
You and me, both.
If they do that, I WILL stay home.
Homosexuals do not just want gay marriage because they want to get married. The list of “rights” it affords is so minor, it would be totally irrational for anyone to think it is worth this kind of hubbub.
They want the term “marriage” because it fundamentally institutionalizes their relationships as equal to male/female couples in every way and in every aspect of the law, the culture and the society.
The most dangerous aspect to this is probably how “marriage” would now be taught in the schools to the youngest children. After this, by law, any judge would say the schools must now teach that marrying the same sex cannot be spoken about or taught any differently than is marrying someone of the opposite sex. Which means kids would now have to be taught that marriage means you get to enter into a committed relationship with either a male or female, whichever one they choose.
It’s hard to believe this would not fundamentally change a child’s upbringing and make them much more likely to experiment with same-sex attraction and relationships. It’s hard to imagine how a pre-pubescent child, like a boy who thinks girls are “icky” would react. Many children might spend years thinking they’re going to grow up to marry their best same-sex friend and even start showing signs of romantic affection to them.
Certainly all school socials, functions, dances and proms would now have to openly promote and encourage same-sex relationships on an equal footing, just as sexual education classes would. We’ve seen the hints of this kind of indoctrination into the lifestyle show up in education in the most liberal areas. But with same-sex marriage legalized, the almost guaranteed next step is that the courts would order any and all schools to put this type of same-sex relationship education into their curriculum.
For conservatives to think that issue begins and ends at “two people who love each other getting married” would a huge mistake. To not talk about the much broader cultural and legal changes that same-sex marriage would inevitably lead to will probably mean losing on this issue and setting up traditional society for one of the most extreme, unprecedented, and risky changes that has ever taken place in our country.
Fag RINOs? What other deviltry will they bring us?
LOL, absolutely ludicrous. You're saying we should not argue against the propaganda lefties are engaged in to damage the country on every possible front? When we don't engage and address their arguments, we lose. You can't win if you're not at the table. Not to mention, it sounds like you only want Republicans to be able to win when the economy is bad. You seem to think we're incapable of winning on any other single issue. You couldn't be more wrong. These are stronger issues for us because the public is behind common sense. They are often also behind getting a big safety net when the economy is bad, which is why it's very hard to defeat liberals on the economy and always has been. You couldn't be helping the liberals more than if you were one of their plants come here to swat us.
Like most of Ron Paul's ideas, it makes no practical sense. All those issues of adoption, hospital visitation, privacy, what happens to assets in divorce, child custody, etc., would still need to be handled by law. At best your plan would result in equal civil unions being created for any kind of couple, probably even incestuous relationships if they wanted it. Otherwise the "civil union" law would need to say it only applies to heterosexual couples, in which case we're back to the same old debate and we just have to "hope" people don't keep calling it marriage just because it's an easier term to use.
This isn't ABOUT private sexual lives, dimwit. That issue was settled by the Supreme Court in the Texas case years ago. This is about THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. Wake up and get a clue.
Gay marriage is THE stealth issue in this campaign. Mitt saying the election is "about the economy" is just another of his and the RNC's and the RINO media's Big Lies. Gay marriage is why Newt and Santorum why savaged by Drudge and FOX News. It's why the party wanted Mitt. It's why Obama made his move this week. Mitt was gathering stealth gay support and the Democrats knew it. This was Obama's way of trying to get that support on his side. That's why the RNC and Mitt seem unhappy at what Obama did, when it looks like a huge gaffe on Obama's part to the base. The RNC and Mitt do not want to talk about opposing gay marriage because they don't oppose it and they want the money and votes of people who do support it. They hate the fact that Obama moved to the left of them on the issue and that they can't match his move without alienating the base.
So a man and woman, husband and wife, can’t have anal or oral sex because it doesn’t produce babies? Is that what you are saying?
There's a reason they are called queers. If that isn't queer, I don't know what is.
Not a good argument to use. Heterosexual couples engage in oral and anal sex as well. If you get asked about that and say you oppose that as well, then it undermines the argument against same-sex marriage by looking like you have a much broader agenda. Same-sex marriage would be wrong even for a celibate couple because of the example it sets and confusion it causes to children and how it undermines the traditional, biological family structure, which is an absolutely necessary social construction to tame the worst instincts of man and promote public health and economic well-being.
Bottom line is people can already engage in any relationship they want legally. Marriage says we are encouraging a certain type of relationship with special benefits because we believe it's good for society. It is not a right, it's a privilege that's voluntarily approved of by the voters.
get george soros OUT OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY! and all evil for that matter. My God Help us. Fall on your knees and humble yourself before our Lord for the sake of our Nation if for no other reason.
From Politico. What a shock.
This guy has his own polling firm in Houston. Anyone ever heard of him before?
Does anyone give a damn what he might think?
Doubt it....
Has van Lohuizen ever identified his “husband?”
Turns out this pollster has been pushing this since at least July 2011. A previous “memo” he sent is linked below.
“The remarkable surge over the last two years can’t be explained by generational change alone. It suggests that people across the political spectrum are rethinking their
positions—and deciding in favor of the freedom to marry.” Republican pollster Dr. Jan van Lohuizen, July 2011
A solid and rapidly diversifying majority of the American public now supports the freedom to marry.
2011 analysis of six national polls conducted by Joel Benenson, President of Benenson Strategy Group and lead pollster to President Barack Obama, and Dr. Jan van Lohuizen, President of Voter Consumer Research and former pollster to President George W. Bush.
http://freemarry.3cdn.net/5ae85613318ade1b2e_8dm6bnq72.pdf
Actually, it seems obvious that it is the faggots/perverts who are "fixated on the anal part." Normal humans are quite repelled by the idea of Mr. Happy roaming the Hershey Highway. But you knew that.
blueunicorn6:
Way to go! High fives!!!
Male penis, male anus is the queer part.
LOL, more for his resume...leading RINO pollster.
http://mittromneycentral.com/2007/04/09/washpost-romneys-inner-circle/
WashPost: Romney’s Inner Circle
Jan van Lohuizen: If you don’t know who van Lohuizen is, that’s just how he likes it. One of the lowest-profile pollsters in politics, van Lohuizen is also one of the most highly regarded. He was a key member of the Bush polling team in 2004 and has had a hand in any number of major GOP victories, including victories by Govs. Charlie Crist (R-Fla.) and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s (R-Calif.) last November.
This is a story to be denied or admitted to by Romney. If his big money men were gay people intent on an agenda it’s long overdue for him to admit to it ~ and to his wife as well.
Have we degenerated so far in the conservative movement that I need to be explaining on a conservative website why normal people don't do that stuff?
Put bluntly, the parts don't fit. If you like packing fudge with your wife, please don't tell us about it. That stuff, just like Bill Clinton's escapades with Monica Lewinski, quite literally makes me want to vomit. It shouldn't be discussed in public, but our society has gotten so bad that it has become acceptable in too many circles.
By the way, deviant sexual intercourse such as that used to be illegal, and it scandalized the Congress not that many years ago when a Mafia girlfriend, when asked in a Congressional hearing why she was liked by Mafiosi, said the reason why was that she gave good oral sex (using different words, of course).
I've got bigger things to worry about than criminalizing private activities between husbands and wives and I prefer to keep the focus on promoting marriage, which **IS** key to preserving society by transmitting cultural values from one generation to another. However, things like anal and oral sex ought not even to be discussed in places where people aren't perverts.
Let's remember that things could be a lot worse than they are in the modern American conservative movement. Imagine what it would be like to be in France, where
1) the moderate conservative is a multiple adulterer now married to a woman with her own serious moral problems,
2) the right-wing candidate is a woman who has been divorced twice and is now openly living with a man to whom she is not married, and
3) the Socialist who just won the presidency dumped his ex-live-in girlfriend shortly after she lost the presidential campaign in the last election for a new live-in girlfriend who he hasn't yet bothered to marry, either.
That's where we're going if we keep being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.
What would I do if I were a conservative patriotic Christian in France? I have no idea. What scares me is I have absolutely no doubt that a hundred years ago, any reasonably conservative American looking at our current American presidential candidates would have been just as disgusted as we are today looking at the French candidates for their presidency today. The frog and kettle seem to be boiling rather warmly now.
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.