Establishment Republicans campaigning for homosexual marriage

Family Research Council - Email | June 25, 2012 | Tom McClusky

[Iam1ru1-2]

Despite a majority of Americans who are pro-life and 30 states that have marriage protection in their state constitutions, we won't take it for granted that Republican Leadership will always respect that it's the social issues that have been at the heart of the party.

In conventions past, there has been controversy surrounding the pro-life plank in the party platform. This year, it appears that controversy has shifted to traditional marriage.

Strong voices within the Republican Party would like nothing more than to change the official stance in regards to marriage between one man and one woman:

Dick Cheney, former U.S. Vice President
Laura Bush, former U.S. First Lady
Ken Mehlman, former Chairman of the Republican National Convention
Former Governors Christine Todd Whitman (NJ
Gary Johnson (NM)
Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA)
Tom Kean (NJ)
Dan Evans - former Gov.(WA)
William Weld (MA).

And there are others who have appeared to compromise on the issue.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman
......have each raised funds for national pro-homosexual groups. Both of these men are on record supporting marriage between one man and one woman, but there are some who will continue to pressure these men until they cave.

But the problem goes much deeper. For many solid pro-life Republican leaders, the economy appears to have pushed out moral issues in today's politics. One of the casualties is the defense of marriage.

That's why FRC Action will be on hand at the Republican National Convention and the platform committee meetings the week before.

Standing (Ephesians 6:13),

Tom McClusky Senior Vice President FRC Action

[Agamemnon]

But remember, you must all automatically vote for anyone and everyone with an “R” after their name, otherwise you’re a traitor who loves Obama!

OK Yash. Now tell us all how many of these folks are running for anything as an (R):

Dick Cheney, former U.S. Vice President

Laura Bush, former U.S. First Lady

Ken Mehlman, former Chairman of the Republican National Convention

Former Governors Christine Todd Whitman (NJ)

Gary Johnson (NM)

Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA)

Tom Kean (NJ)

Dan Evans - former Gov.(WA)

William Weld (MA).

It will be wise to keep a close eye on these two (Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)), if it is true as FRC says, that they "are others who have appeared to compromise on the issue," (a FAR cry from a direct indictment there folks), but if they are the only elected (R)'s we have to worry about, I'd say voting (R) in 2012 is still the best choice to defeat the homosexual agenda.

They're just politicians. Watch them ALL closely. Ride heard on them. They'll disappoint us all less, if we do. Too many conservatives think all they have to do is elect their "perfect" candidate, sit back, get lazy, go about their business, and then wonder what happened to their "perfect" politicians when they get corrupted by the trappings of "Washington".

Instead of taking every opportunity to to piss in the direction of the only party that is a real opposition to the Regime in this race, why don't you grow up a little bit and instead focus your attention more on defeating this guy?

FReegards!

[dfwgator]

GOP now stands for “Gay Old Party.”

[LaybackLenny]

Oooo, Linda...now you've stepped in it!

The "Romney is Our Messiah" acolytes are out in force here on FR. Why, just last night I was basically told in no uncertain terms to check my principles at the door. Sadly, (see my tagline).

Don't say I didn't warn you ;-)

[EternalVigilance]

I wouldn’t give a plug nickel to FRC. They have been at the forefront of lying to provide political cover for the most liberal governor in history, Mitt Romney, for the last six years.

The father of “gay marriage” in Massachusetts.

The governor who thoroughly homosexualized his state’s government and the public schools.

All to fulfill his promises to the ‘Log Cabin Republicans.”

[EternalVigilance]

We are overdue for a conservative third party.

America's Party

Platform

[ansel12]

William Weld is who Mitt Romney considers his mentor and political twin on issues.

[WKUHilltopper]

“I have been saying for a long time, the republican leadership is all part of the New World Order, big government socialist plan, they’re all socialists.”

Yep. They’re obviously agents of diversion and controlled opposition. The GOP continues to demonstrate why it separates and abandons itself from me. I never thought I’d see the day when I’d tell the phone calling beggars from the GOP to ‘piss off’.

[WKUHilltopper]

“America’s Party

Platform”

Thanks...I’m definitely looking for a new party.

[Lady4Liberty]

Well, look no further than our nominee that now represents the whole Republican Party to see someone push the homosexual agenda.

***

***

Romney's State Sponsored Push Of The Homosexual Agenda Onto Children.

***

***

1.) "Husband" and "Wife" has been replaced by "Party A" and "Party B".
2.) Justices of the Peace are required to "solemnize" these marriages or be fired, as ordered by Gov. Mitt Romney on April 25, 2004. "We're just following the law," said Mitt Romney.
3.) Male/Female checkoffs for both Party A and Party B now on marriage license.
None of this was required by any law passed by the Legislature, or even ordered by the court. Governor Mitt Romney did this on his own, in cooperation with the ruling: "We're just following the law."

***

Mitt Romney's Gay Youth Pride Proclamation: "Urge all the citizens of the Commonwealth to take cognizance of this event and participate fittingly in its observance."

***

Mitt Romney To The Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts: "My approach to government is consistent with the values & vision of government we share." […] "I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for American gay & lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent." (His opponent? Senator Ted Kennedy. Full "equality" is a term the homosexual community uses to describe gay "marriage" & pushing the gay agenda into the mainstream.)

- "We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern." "I can and will." - Mitt Romney

"I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays & lesbians being able to service openly & honestly in our nation's miliary. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians in the mainstream concern." - Mitt Romney

***

ROMNEYCARE: As Governor, Mitt Romney's Administration Promoted Issues Benefitting Transgenderism
“A nurse in a Massachusetts public high school was instructed to post the DPH ‘Transgender Health Poster’ showing three people: One is clearly a young man trying to pass for a female, one a flamboyant ‘drag queen’ wearing gobs of makeup, and one an unnaturally flat-chested young butch female with facial piercings,” she reports.

The poster from the Romney Department of Public Health was pushed statewide – in doctors’ offices, school nurses’ offices & public transportation. The poster claimed “Transphobia in healthcare is unhealthy.’”

Radical Gay Agenda Pushed By Governor Romney's Department of Public Health:
- Assisted AIDS Action Committee’s distribution of ‘The Little Black Book – Queer in the 21st Century (An X-Rated guide to homosexual sex practices and hook-up venues for young men).
- Eliminated STD testing before issuance of marriage licenses (new law signed by governor).
- Published a politically correct “Toolkit for Physicians” for treating men who have sex with men.
- Officially worked with anonymous homosexual hook-up website, ManHunt.net.
- Collaborated with Department of Social Services on “Waltham House” foster home for “transgender youth.”
- Involved in disseminating GLBT propaganda in public schools.
- Issued illegally altered marriage licenses in May 2004 to allow for same-sex couples.
- Maintained a confused policy over altering birth certificates to allow for “same-sex” parents.
[link]

Elementary School Indoctrination Books Pushed Under The Romney Administration (Lexington Public Schools, Massachusetts)

***

Massachusetts Tells Catholic Church it MUST Permit Homosexual Adoption
Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:15 EST
BOSTON, February 20, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and a top government leader have told a group of bishops that their request that Catholic institutions be exempt from placing foster children with same-sex parents will be denied. [link]

Mitt Romney Said The Boy Scouts Should Be Forced Include Homosexuals
Romney uses gay-affirming “discrimination” rhetoric even with regard to the Boy Scouts’ ban on homosexuals. […] Romney is trying to shift the GOP’s pro-family paradigm on homosexuality, and it’s an unwise shift — much like retreating from a principled position on pro-life. [link]

[ View The Log Cabin Republican's Unbelievable Pro-Romney Ad ]

[Yashcheritsiy]

Well Aggy, it would help if you could actually make a logical argument (for once). Each on that list is a former elected official of the Republican Party, either internally or externally, and each is, indeed, a party of the "GOP-E" that helps to guide the direction the party is moving in.

Instead of taking every opportunity to to piss in the direction of the only party that is a real opposition to the Regime in this race, why don't you grow up a little bit and instead focus your attention more on defeating this guy?

You really are clueless, aren't you? They're the "opposition," even though they basically aren't opposing very much.

Your definitions are as backward as your thinking.

[Yashcheritsiy]

Well, look no further than our nominee that now represents the whole Republican Party to see someone push the homosexual agenda.

Shhhh, don't tell Agamemnon that. He's still labouring under the self-imposed delusion that the Republicans are the "opposition."

[Yashcheritsiy]

With any luck, you’ll be in the rapture.

I will, though luck has nothing to do with it.

[Agamemnon]

Each on that list is a former elected official of the Republican Party, either internally or externally, and each is, indeed, a party of the "GOP-E" that helps to guide the direction the party is moving in.

You've been a former employee of someone in your life, Yash.

Tell me how influential were you as an admitted former employee of anyone's?

You continue to be worried about "GOPe" has beens instead of focusing on the defeating the real enemy in the White House -- the MSM's proudly anointed national faggot.

They're the "opposition," even though they basically aren't opposing very much.

They're also not in any positon to lead a charge on anything either, especially where anything dealing with homosexuality is at the forefront.

One of Cheney's daughters is a lesbo, Phyllis Schlafly's son is a faggot and she employs him in her organization. Laura Ingrahm's brother is a faggot. Rumsfeld came out n favor of dropping DADT - because he knew of military service people who served honorably inspite of their personal proclivities.

Ken Mehlman came out as a faggot himself - he's a former not a current head of the RNC Convention. "Former" is the operative word you seem to have missed.

I don't excuse the weakness homosexuality itself and coddling of homosexuals presents to our effective political opposition to it, but it should be informative how corrosive homosexuality can be in our ranks and should be something which effectively is purged from them to the degree it can be.

A example of doing so is the Romney's team's demonstration that it is smart enough to get a faggot holdover from the Bush Administration out of his campaign early.

"Opposition" to faggotocracy is difficult in some cases, because so many we have historically considered stalwarts of conservatism on our side in other contexts have been polluted by close and sometimes family level proximities to it. John Schmitz - American Independent Party candidate 1972, with pedophile daughter Mary Kay LeTourneau, is another example of those believed to be the "conservative alternative" answer to the two-party system - who crashed and burned in the end

It appears at present that Romney's doing more to see to it that it doesn't infest his team -- standing up to whatever political fall out there was for doing so -- by firing the guy, than is Phyllis Schlafly -- as much as I still admire her and her long time conservative effectiveness.

Your continual insistence on tilting at windmills at has beens makes you a uniquely ineffective opposition to anything of substance, however.

FReegards!

[Yashcheritsiy]

You've been a former employee of someone in your life, Yash.

Tell me how influential were you as an admitted former employee of anyone's?

True, but I also don't get invited to front row seats at their shareholders' meetings, nor do I have plans on getting myself elected to higher levels of upper management.

Your argument fails. Point denied.

[Agamemnon]

True, but I also don't get invited to front row seats at their shareholders' meetings, nor do I have plans on getting myself elected to higher levels of upper management. Your argument fails. Point denied.

Maybe you don't have a "front row seat," because you haven't earned the place to be considered for such a seat, but to extend your illustration, you fail to realize that if you leave the shareholder's meeting, wherever it was you happened to be sitting in it, you now have no voice.

Can you name one of those GOP has beens who are running for "higher office" as you imply in your illustration? Get back to us with an answer, why don't you.

The only one in that list who is running for higher office is Gary Johnson, not as an (R) but as a third party.

Sounds like he's following your historically failed strategy.

Checkmate!

FReegards!

[Yashcheritsiy]

Maybe you don't have a "front row seat," because you haven't earned the place to be considered for such a seat,

Though admittedly, with this current crowd, I don't think I *want* to "earn" the right to hang with them. In fact, I'm a little afraid to find out what I'd have to do, or turn into, to "earn" such an "honour." but to extend your illustration, you fail to realize that if you leave the shareholder's meeting, wherever it was you happened to be sitting in it, you now have no voice.

Yeah, but there are just some companies you don't want to be a shareholder of, knowwudimean?

Can you name one of those GOP has beens who are running for "higher office" as you imply in your illustration? Get back to us with an answer, why don't you.

LOL, nice try at moving the goalposts. Of course, Gary Johnson did, in fact, try to run for higher office as a Republican. Further, each of the rest is assuredly part of the inner sanctum of the GOP, and who knows that one or more of them won't be running for higher office of some sort, in or out of the Party appparatus, in the future. As such, your question is somewhat pointless.

Checkmate!

Ah, I've found your problem. You think you're playing chess, when in fact you're playing Candyland. Not that you could tell the difference, of course.

Frankly, your arguments for Mitt Romney are pathetic. In fact, they're worse than pathetic. "Pathetic" at least presumes that you *tried* to be creative in developing your argument only to fail, whereas it's pretty obvious that you haven't even tried to exercise your brain on this one.

However, you might be happy to learn that John Roberts has managed to make the argument you signally failed to, so I'm at least not actively opposing Romney anymore, though I still am not sold on the notion that he's actually going to "repeal ObamaCare on day one" - not only because this isn't actually within his power to do, even were he to get elected, but also because I think this promise is just more of the same bilious nonsense that we're come to expect from this man over the last two decades. However, at least there's a chance he will, so the odds are better with him than with Obama.

[Agamemnon]

However, you might be happy to learn that John Roberts has managed to make the argument you signally failed to, so I'm at least not actively opposing Romney anymore, ... the odds are better with him than with Obama. "

I have made the point repeatedly about the importance of not giving Obama the opportunity to appoint any more Supreme Court court justices in postings made to you and others in just the past ~3 months. You should pay closer attention.

The house in on fire. We have exactly one feasible opportunity within the system left to us to put it out (without bloodshed or violence, as some on this board threaten mindlessly): Election day - Novmber 6, 2012.

Take away our election day, and then we can talk about going to the mat "in blood." There's a time and a place for everything. We're not "there" yet.

You and I understand a thing or two about pharmaceutical science. This illustration might make some sense.

Those still actively opposing Romney refuse to put out the fire unless they are given distilled, deionized ("DI") Water for Injection - USP ("WFI, US Pharmacopoeia") with which to do it. To use anything less is a moral shame of the lowest order and a sin against the Most High God Himself -- so they say.

Barring unforeseen circumstances, he is the given choice this time around. By Him.

Romney may not be "Di-WFI-USP," but for all of anyone else's claims to the contrary, no one else in this race ever was either. At least Romney's, shall we say, "potable."

The day he isn't "potable" is the day we look for another "vendor" to replace him -- as we should do with any non-performing vendor -- whether labled as "Di-WFI-USP" or not.

But for now -- whether we like him or not, he's the near-term answer to dousing the conflagration this Nation has become.

Let's give him a little more slack in the fire hose so we can aim it with more flexibility and less rigidity so as to have a fighting chance to put the fire out this November.

I am happy to know that you have at least chosen to stop aiming your hose at Romney.

The fire is still raging. Let's agree to aim our hose at the base of Obama's fire.

It's how you fight "fires."

FReegards!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear Agamemnon!

[Yashcheritsiy]

You should pay closer attention.

I heard what you said - it's just that your presentation and your arguments are not convincing. In other words, my point is not that I don't see the tactical logic in supporting Romney, if only to beat Obama, because this is the mostest importantest election evah. It's that your particular attempts at making your case are so poor and rubbishy that you end up undercutting yourself.

Regardless, I think our discussion has gone on long enough on this particular thread, or perhaps you've simply ceased to be amusing, so I'm through with it for the time being.

[Agamemnon]

I heard what you said - it's just that your presentation and your arguments are not convincing. .... It's that your particular attempts at making your case are so poor and rubbishy that you end up undercutting yourself.

So, let's get this straight. Now that Roberts has done what he's done, you've had a sudden epiphany about the importance of Romney winning over Obama this fall, because the Supreme Court's at stake. Good for you. Duh.

You were told this all along, and many of us have been saying this all along, but in your pride you want to blame me and possibly others for making a supposedly "poor" and somehow "unconvincing" case, such that it somehow just escaped you.

Somehow you just didn't realize how important future USSC nominees were until just now??? What rock have you been living under, and what "purist" blinders do you wear that obscures your ability to see what for most of us at FR has been so obvious?

The trouble with "DI-WFI's" like yourself is you need to be smacked over the head with a 2x4 to get you off your pompous soapboxes long enough to realize the support beam of the structure of State is in flames.

You choose to sit around and nit pick those of us who are actually on the lines doing something to rally the troops to put the fire out while all you can seem to do is sit back like the armchair warrior that you are and pontificate about your 3rd party self-righteousness.

We can sound the trumpet, but if you remain purposefully deaf, no one will be able to unstopper your ears unless you finally choose to do it yourself.

Now you're looking for a face-saving way to dig yourself out of the hole you dug earlier. Continuing to insist on being a malcontent, while effectively - though perhaps a bit grudgingly -- admitting we were right all along, it appears you're just at this point reduced to talking out of both sides of your mouth.

You are free to disengage from the discussion, of course, but this might be a good time to resolve to swallow some of that pride, pick up the fire hose, and start aiming at Obama.

While you are a little late to the present task, conservatism will welcome all the help it can get at this point.

Try to aim like you actually care.

FReegards!