I guess McAsshat should be changed to McHomo in this instance.
Posted on 05/26/2005 8:04:54 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Arizona Senator John McCain wasn't just speaking for himself last week when he rejected the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. Senator McCain has received money in the current campaign cycle from the Republican Unity Coalition (RUC), a powerful homosexual advocacy organization.
McCain accepted $1,000 for the political action committee of the Republican Unity Coalition. During his address to the Senate last week, McCain touted the official RUC position on the Federal Marriage amendment...
(Excerpt) Read more at azconservative.org ...
:sigh:
Ping.
You might want to read this.
Not surprising. CINO's/RINO's have this thing of undermining their party all the time.
"McCain Supports Radical Homosexual Activist Position On FMA"
Unfortunate Headline Warning!
So, Senator McVain is goin' into the tank for a measly $1000.00?
Surprised that he accepted ONLY $1,000.
Well, that explains Lindsey's loyalty to him.
Unfortunately, it seems that he is.
John, it's time to come out of the closet. You're a liberal and everybody knows it.
whatever blows his skirt up.
Undermining? That's bullcrap. If anything he helps the party.
McCain isn't a member of the Grand Old Religious Fundamentalist Party, he's a member of the Republican party. And I don't see any "no queers" in the Republican platform.
If zealotry against homosexuals is so important to you, go live in Iran or Saudi Arabia. You'd fit right in.
The harder McCrazy tries to remain relevant, the smaller he becomes.
Keep the homosexual lobby out of marriage.
I am afraid that with the combination of a few "Free Fisting" states such as Massachusetts, together with a bunch of liberal activist federal judges, the federal government MUST get involved in order to protect the institution of marriage in the civilized states. It is a shame, though.
"Undermining? That's bullcrap. If anything he helps the party."
Please do, tell me how. Most people in your country support the marriage between one man& one woman and want a constitutional ammendment.
"McCain isn't a member of the Grand Old Religious Fundamentalist Party, he's a member of the Republican party. And I don't see any "no queers" in the Republican platform."
You don't have to be religious to oppose the constitutional ammendment for the trad. def. of marriage.I have never said that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be in the party.
"If zealotry against homosexuals is so important to you, go live in Iran or Saudi Arabia. You'd fit right in."
Oh, I'm a bigot because I don't believe in homosexuals marrying? Right, my view is to do everything we can to protect marriage so that the courts don't change it means I hate homosexuals. That's the type of argument I hear from the liberals all the time. Given the fact that unlike me you don't live in a place where your country is at the brink of legalising homosexual marriage, it's easier for you to speak that way.BTW, we have a helluva lot of CINO's in my Conservative party.
McCain is not a conservative, the only reason that he is prolife is because that is the one position that got him elected in the first place. Lindsey Graham and John McCain hate the religious right. I suspect that the Democrats may have been right when they accused Graham of being light in the loafers during the impeachment and that they may be holding this over Graham's head. McCain is just doing what he has always done, putting himself and his ambitions ahead of every thing else.
Remember that McCain was brought up on ethics charges while he was in Congress for raping the wife of another POW. McCain got out of it by claiming that the woman was drunk and that she came on to him. The problem with that explanation is that the woman is a tea totaller and always was.
I don't think the original poster said anything about zealotry against homosexuals. Rather, his objection was based on his argument that McCain had adopted the political agenda of radical homosexuals. Surely, one does not have to accept the agenda of homosexual marriage to avoid being labeled an anti-homosexual zealot.
It's important for Republicans not to make the same mistake as the left. We should not assume that anyone who does not think Queer Nation, the organization, should be given a forum in public schools hates homosexuals. Similarly, folks who express moral objections to homosexual behavior should make it clear they are objecting to the behavior, not the person.
If your thinking is that disagreeing with any part of the homosexual agenda or behavior comprises anti-homosexual zealotry, I must respectfully, disagree.
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.