Skip to comments.Top Republican Pollster Advises Party To Embrace Gay Marriage
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 Dont Ask, Dont 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.
“The problem is not government involvement -the problem is a government that ignores its place under the Creator and instead seeks to replace God with itself and redefine things such as marriage...”
Actually, the problem is the government’s involvement. Let’s see, a government is what people make it out to be. So, people(or their elected officials) can decide what marriage it, giving equal protection to the homo coupling. What a government “should be” is not reflected in what a government actually is!
I agree. I tend to think he has not thought many issues all the way through because frankly as an anarchist he could care less of the negative consequences to social order.
He never had to think things through ~ as a Member of Congress they have staff people to do that. The Representatives usually do nothing more than a surface gloss of any issue.
It seems you forget about self evident truths and inalienable rights. What about the Creator -do you as well forget about Him?
The government is under God and limited to the powers enumerated it by the people. The authority to redefine marriage to include homosexual sex practitioners comes from where? It does not come from God! It does not cme from the people!
SO -to reiterate my point regarding the government necessarily being involved as an agent tasked by the people to maintain moral order for the common good THAT The problem is not government involvement -the problem is a government that ignores its place under the Creator and instead seeks to replace God with itself and redefine things such as marriage...
They are starting to believe their own bullshit.
They really know how to scare off the Base. Is John McCain coaching them? What IDIOTS.
If it is true that homosexual “marriage” is gaining popularity, it isn’t that surprising. Media, corporate America, government and government schools promote the homosexual agenda, and they have been doing it for as long as I can remember - at least 20 years.
Self-styled homosexuals have the same freedom as the rest of us, to marry a person of the opposite sex.
The most sympathetic and loving thing we can do for homosexuals is to pray that they turn away from a very destructive lifestyle.
State level marriage laws and DOMA are important but social conservatives (I am one) need to realize that whatever moral authority we claim to have on this issue is badly undermined by our high divorce rates, no-fault divorce, fast-track divorce, and the power of the “family” law courts and attorneys in divorce and child custody. If there is a conservative movement to reform this system, to make divorce more difficult, I am not aware of it.
Amen to this post, especially to the last paragraph.
1. The Tenth Amendment approach on rump-ranging posing as "marriage" would not end the subject. Consult Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) for a probable liberal toolbox by which the decision of one state (say Robamney's Taxachusetts) can be imposed on the others. Then check out the text of the Fourteenth Amendment (the most resourceful toolbox ever possessed by liberals and now by social revolutionaries) which requires in its Equal Protection Clause (last clause of Amendment XIV, Section 1) that all persons within a state be provided with "equal protection of the laws." If a pair of Massachusetts rump-rangers pretending to civil "marriage" as allowed by Massachusetts authorities, move to a more sensible place like Alabama or Mississippi and the state to which they move refuses to "recognize" their "marriage," then it is off to court and Alabama or Mississippi can be crushed into line by the lavenders using the fedcourts.
2. Once we start down the Tenth Amendment road, we are in for more trouble. If you consider abortion a "bedroom issue" (I don't know if you do or don't) the Tenth Amendment will mean giving up forever the noble attempt (short of an unlikely actual federal constitutional amendment putting a stop to abortion once and for all without any possibility of "local option"), the attempt to end the holocaust of the unborn. NYC will dominate NY state into retaining abortion "rights" as will Los Angeles and San FranSicko and La Jolla will dominate California and Chicago will dominate Illinois into guaranteeing that the baby-killing operations continue unimpeded. Also Vermont, Maryland, Hawaii, and other states may do likewise. If you can drive or ride from New Hampshire to New York, you will get that abortion. Nevada to California. Missouri, Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota to Chicago, etc.
Face the fact that we have a federal judiciary that is absolutely run amok, is not effectively checked or balanced by other powers, and, for the sake of this nation's future, needs to be brought to heel.
God bless you and yours!
Thanks! May God bless you and yours!
I’m uncomfortable leaving the marriage issue up to any Court, at any level.
It seems to me that at some point, Christians, conservatives, constitutionalists and traditionalists are going to need to come together on this issue and insist, through their duly elected representatives and/or state governor, that:
a.) Congress must restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the federal Courts in regards to marriage;
b.) The state government consider nullification in response to the failure of a.) and the inevitable federal court decision forcing recognition of homosexual marriage
Do I advocate re-criminalizing what was once termed “deviant sexual conduct”? Not in the present cultural climate as long as other factors such as rape, incest, or statutory rape are involved — in my state, even today anal and oral sex carry additional criminal penalties when they are not consensual. But we've got enough problems to deal with and I'm not inclined to try to re-criminalize sexual conduct between two heterosexual married people.
Of course, just because something is legal doesn't mean it's moral, and not everything which is morally permitted is a good idea.
I'm not Roman Catholic; I am not required to believe that all sexual activity must have at least the potential to lead to procreation. (Catholics please correct me here if I've misunderstood the official teaching of your church on this issue — that's the way it has been explained to me.)
However, anal and oral sex were once commonly prohibited by law. Prior to President Clinton getting a “Lewinsky” in the White House, these subjects simply were not discussed in polite company.
What is the standard reason given for heterosexual couples having non-vaginal intercourse? First, avoidance of pregnancy, and second, a desire to try something “different” that they feel will be more stimulating. Outside committed couples (I'm including live-in relationships in that category, trying to be as broad as possible) additional motives get cited such as “it's quicker” or a desire by men to dominate the woman involved.
I fail to see that any of those are good reasons for people to put their genitals in places they don't belong.
Just how many women really enjoy giving a “blow job” or receiving anal sex? While there are probably some out there, I think it's pretty clear we're talking about ways in which men can satisfy their urges by forcing something on their wives or girlfriends that few would choose unless they've become accustomed to it, and I fail to see how that reflects a loving marital relationship.
I have literally gagged several times in writing this note. I believe that is the way most normal people respond to the idea of these sexual “alternatives” and the fact that our society is accepting them says a great deal about how far our society has fallen.
The bottom line is that homosexuals do things which normal people do not do. Those things are disgusting, and should disgust normal people.
We agree on divorce rates being a bad witness.
Actually there have been many efforts to address the issue of making divorce more difficult on the state and local levels. There are legal complications to the so-called “covenant marriage” concept; other steps have been taken such groups of people in some communities making “quickie” marriage more difficult by judges, justices of the peace, and others refusing to conduct marriages on the grounds that they are not trained to do premarital counseling. However, it is legally impossible to bar people from getting a quickie marriage by driving to states and jurisdictions which allow that, and that was an issue even a half-century ago with people driving across state lines.
The root problem is that we live in a culture that devalues marriage and that is causing many difficulties.
I don’t see that divorce rates undermine man/woman marriage at all. In fact, they emphasize the difficulty for the community when families fall apart. Improperly supervised children, poverty-line children, and marginally educated children ALL testify to the BENEFITS of married parents caring for their own children based on the bonds established between caring parents and children.
THAT is why society gives small tax and other concessions to married male/female couples!
It’s not because they are “in love” or because that’s how they prefer their sexuality to be expressed.
The state has absolutely no interest in who you love, and the only interest they have in HOW you express your sexuality involves public health and the spread of STDs.
Divorce emphasizes how valuable it is for families to hang in there.
“I dont see that divorce rates undermine man/woman marriage at all.”
I didn’t argue that; rather that the high divorce rates among Christians (no better than our secular neighbors, according to surveys I have read) undermine our moral authority in *arguing* for traditional marriage.
If Christians, conservatives and traditionalists want to defend marriage, they should be petitioning their state representatives to rewrite the family code to make it more difficult to divorce.
I, of course, agree that Christians should follow their principles. Anytime they don’t anyone could argue against that principle being valid, whether divorce, theft, etc.
However, since the principle is God-given, it always remains valid and always remains arguable. It only takes teh courage to do so in bad times.
So, I understand what you’re saying, but I want us to stand and fight and not give up and what is right just because some goofy Christians get off track.
Not just no, but hell no.
Freedom OF Religion doesn't mean the government can come in and start telling the faithful what to believe.
This is why I have been insistent over the years that Marriage stay a RELIGIOUS sacrament and that secular government have no say in it. Either for, or against.
Because when it comes right down to it, when you allow government to license your marriage, you opened yourself up to exactly this.
Once again, I was right. Some folks here need to come to terms with that.
Real Christians faithfully seek and follow Him. A real Christian nation made up of real faithful Christians would never acknowledge homosexual behavior as anything more than an abomination. And we would not be providing material support to our culture war enemies by sending our children to be educated in government schools. And we wouldn’t have permitted 55 million abortions. And we wouldn’t elect leaders who take advice from “top republican pollsters advising party to embrace...”. There are Biblical arguments against homosexual “marriage”, but those arguments are not credible coming from the mouths of unrepentant, antinomian Christians-in-name-only.
I’ve been repeating myself, but I think it is worth repeating...
You can’t win if you’re not at the table.
If you’re not at the table, you lose.
Too many on our side seem to want to lose.
When you get to the table, then you start playing your cards.
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.