Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Top Republican Pollster Advises Party To Embrace Gay Marriage
Mediaite ^ | May 12th, 2012 | Josh Feldman

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.”



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012polls; 2012rncplatform; gope; homosexualagenda; janvanlohuizen; moralabsolutes; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-170 next last
To: markomalley

Never heard of the guy. Why am I supposed to fawn over the pronouncements of a spineless nobody?


41 posted on 05/12/2012 8:13:35 AM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6
Trying to mate with another male’s anal canal is as insane as trying to mate with a knothole or cat

There's a reason they are called queers. If that isn't queer, I don't know what is.

42 posted on 05/12/2012 8:13:35 AM PDT by Graybeard58 (Romney vs. Obama? One of them has to lose, I'll rejoice in that fact, whichever it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Sirius Lee; lilycicero; MaryLou1; glock rocks; JPG; Monkey Face; RIghtwardHo; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.


43 posted on 05/12/2012 8:14:01 AM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
My Libertarian nature would argue that persons can
enter into contracted bonded relationships of their own definition,
and remove the Government from the issue,
except to enforce the Contract.

This includes external contracts, such as insurance
The Government should not involved at all,
one way or the other

This pulls the thorn out of the Paw
and removes the ability of others
to define Society in their Own Image

I understand the Societal Benefit of Marriage as a
stable productive unit for the raising of Children
And protecting those who are rendered dependent by pregnancy
This is obvious, but

It is a matter between individuals.

Freepers tend to be divided on
Statist Conservative / Libertarian Conservative Issues,
this is one that cuts to the core

Moral Acts Enforced by Law Cease to be Moral Acts

I, however would never blame someone for "Disagreeing"

44 posted on 05/12/2012 8:16:08 AM PDT by HangnJudge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

There shouldn’t be any debate on this issue: marriage is one man, one woman, and anything else is barbarism. And it is not an accident that there are gay moles in both parties pushing this agenda:

http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”


45 posted on 05/12/2012 8:16:08 AM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Gay marriage is inconsequential to our immediate future. Why doesn’t Obama advocate the marriage of the fathers of the 70% illegitimate afro-americans to the women they donated their seed. Then they could raise these children as a family and get them off the dole. Now that would have wonderful consequences for this country!


46 posted on 05/12/2012 8:18:31 AM PDT by The Old Commander (Anyone who votes for Obama is either delusional or a moron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

Jan van Lohuizen earned his Ph.D. in Political Science from Rice University in 1978. He has been in the polling business ever since.

In the 1980s, he worked for two of the leading Republican polling firms and spent two years as the opinion research director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

In 1991, he founded his own firm, Voter/Consumer Research. He served as President George W. Bush’s pollster in both of his presidential election campaigns. He is highly regarded by political professionals in both parties.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-12/politics/30075801_1_2nd-debate-straw-poll-michele-bachmann#ixzz1ufXkOYsY

There is also a photo which practically screams ‘could I be more gay?’


47 posted on 05/12/2012 8:19:58 AM PDT by robowombat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
embrace gay marriage
The very phrase makes me shudder.
48 posted on 05/12/2012 8:21:31 AM PDT by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: henkster

I am not sure that you are right and rather think that the republicans could win big on this issue if they are smart and articulate enough to make their point.

It’s a matter of real equality , respect of nature(true ecology ! Where are the “green” ? ) and defence of children.
A sane society can’t recognize homosexuality as normal or equal to union between man and woman or it will destroy its own foundation commiting a crime against nature, reason and God


49 posted on 05/12/2012 8:21:41 AM PDT by Ulysse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

...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. ___________________________________________________________

When the GOP forsakes pro-family values, social conservatives will forsake the GOP. The party will go the way of the Whigs.


50 posted on 05/12/2012 8:23:28 AM PDT by stars & stripes forever (Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Embrace a position that a majority of the states’ citizens have solidly stated they oppose.

Makes sense to me.

< /Sarcasm>


51 posted on 05/12/2012 8:27:13 AM PDT by Darnright ("I don't trust liberals, I trust conservatives." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Top Republican Pollster Advises Party To Embrace Gay Marriage

There is simply no compelling argument to completely abandon sympathy for the mentally ill and accept their ailment as a "norm" that cannot be treated. The evidence supplied by cured former homosexuals is overwhelming. They can be treated and their lives can be salvaged.

To disregard their problems and cast them into the abyss by not treating them is an unjustifiable inhumanity.

52 posted on 05/12/2012 8:31:14 AM PDT by Caipirabob (I say we take off and Newt the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Sorry, who?


53 posted on 05/12/2012 8:32:22 AM PDT by RichInOC (Palin 2012: The Perfect Storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
I don't get it! Civil unions give parity to legal issues of inheritance. I seem to remember when fighting for them was a top issue.NOW, they want to marry, be mom and mom or dad and dad for adoptive kids. These are NOT rights. If I wanted to marry a chimpanzee because we were family a few hundred generations ago, I guess that would be my RIGHT as they see it.

It is all about pushing their lifestyle.

vaudine

54 posted on 05/12/2012 8:35:12 AM PDT by vaudine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

All these little “professionals” taking polls are so focused on getting the pole result they want, not on finding out what others actually think.


55 posted on 05/12/2012 8:37:11 AM PDT by Rashputin (Only Newt can defeat both the Fascist democrats and the Vichy GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sagar

First, my name’s not Frank.
Did you even read what you wrote?
Whether you are a Christian or an atheist, what is the purpose of sex if it isn’t to produce babies?
I didn’t write about animal sex. I wrote about human/animal attempted mating.
“You are too fixated on the anal part” - That’s really a pathetic effort.
“You assume sex is about producing babies” - Where did you go to school that you do not know this?
“Ron Paul”? He doesn’t have the brains that God gave gophers.
You have written a lot without making any counter-arguments, or, really, saying anything.
Attempting to mate with a man’s anal canal is insane. Defending insanity is a losing argument.


56 posted on 05/12/2012 8:39:10 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS

Marriage has always been defined as a union between one man and one woman. Changing the definition is perverted and will only lead to chaos.

Romans 1:24-28

New International Version (NIV)

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.


57 posted on 05/12/2012 8:52:21 AM PDT by Auntie Toots (Pray for the United States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sagar; spintreebob; pieceofthepuzzle; All; Antoninus; Lazlo in PA; napscoordinator; cripplecreek; ..
25 posted on Sat May 12 2012 09:59:47 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by sagar: “I think the logical and valid argument against homosexual marriage is what Ron Paul proposes. Just get rid of the government involvement in marriage! When you hand the marriage power back to the churches/religious groups, they will define what it is. And homo groups’ definition of their own version of the marriage will be pointless.”

26 posted on Sat May 12 2012 10:00:06 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by spintreebob: “jobs, taxes, jobs, spending, jobs, borrowing, jobs, regulation. That is what the GOP should campaign on. Contraception, gay marriage, global warming, war in the Sudan, polar bears and baby seals are distractions we should not get into either pro or con.”

30 posted on Sat May 12 2012 10:05:32 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by pieceofthepuzzle: “I agree that the GOP should not debate this issue. They should say, that there are very important public issues that need to be addressed (e.g. economy etc.) and that the private sexual lives of American citizens is not an issue for the government or politicians. They should then point out that the gay marriage issue appears to be an attempt of some to make a private issue into a political one, and to get government involved in peoples private lives.”

No, no, a thousand times no!

This is not a distraction; this is a central point on which conservatives are still the majority and on which we can win votes from socially conservative Democrats. What just happened in North Carolina or (earlier) in California to cause us to think campaigning against gay marriage is a losing issue for Republicans?

The reason for doing so, however, is not pragmatic politics.

Marriage is not a sexual and economic choice between two people. It is the foundation of cultures which transmit values from one generation to another.

The fact that we **CONSERVATIVES** are even thinking about conceding this argument shows how far we have fallen as a society. Conservatives are not libertarians. There is a difference.

58 posted on 05/12/2012 8:52:35 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HangnJudge

And thanks for providing me with the list of why I loathe amoral libertarians more than I loathe immoral leftists.


59 posted on 05/12/2012 8:52:35 AM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
What a load of manure!

What? This guy doesn't get invited to enough DC parties?

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.

They have the right to CONTRACT which is all a marriage is (legally) anyway.

60 posted on 05/12/2012 8:55:56 AM PDT by GVnana (Newt 2012 - He Speaks for Us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-170 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson