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.
Embrace a position that a majority of the states’ citizens have solidly stated they oppose.
Makes sense to me.
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.
It is all about pushing their lifestyle.
All these little “professionals” taking polls are so focused on getting the pole result they want, not on finding out what others actually think.
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.
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.
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 Creatorwho 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.
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.
And thanks for providing me with the list of why I loathe amoral libertarians more than I loathe immoral leftists.
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.
Ron Paul is dishonest. He is entirely pro-homo agenda. He is one of the 5 Rs who voted to force faggots in the military. And marriage has always been recognized by the state. To pretend that the state should not recognize marriage at all is childish anarchy.
When I first saw the agenda on the morning news I immediately asked the better half, "What is 0bama up to behind the scenes now that he has to divert our attention"?
My exact reaction! I am kind of a politics junkie, and I watch the shows and read a lot, and, I have NEVER heard of this guy.
Bush hosed a lot of things, but I believe this is a misrepresentation - Bush distinctly said the word "equal right, not special rights" when queried about the topic. I don't recall him coming out for homosexuals to "marry". If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to recant...
You sure about that?
“the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.
They have that now. He’s intentionally confusing rights with benefits. He is arguing that homosexuals should receive the same benefits as men and women in real marriages.
If screwballs like this guy succeed, next they will argue that we should make the pedophiles of NAMBLA feel welcome and that the GOP should be fighting for them “as a conservative issue” and “as part of its platform”.
As it is, conservatives are getting bupkis when we demand that the GOP include actual conservative issues in its platform. The GOP is going to have to decide—between its base and the disillusioned left—and it has just a few months left.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
More proof (as if any is needed) that the R elitists are really the enemy. You excpect Dems to be worthless bags of puke. But the R elites and insiders are - JUST AS BAD! Traitors! Supposed to be on "our side" - for constitutional principles - traditional moral values - smaller government - and now they're trying to force feed the homo agenda down our throats!! I just pinged an article about Robomeny now backtracking on homo-adoption! He's a liar!
We need a REVOLT at the convention!
It is not a bogus non-issue. It is very unpopular. Even in California the people keep saying “NO!!!!!”
"sarc" tag missing?
Here are the real reasons homosexual activists push for “gay” marriage. In their own words. Please read and learn.
From LA Times of March 12: ...
“Divided over gay marriage” by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to “push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society.” ... [snip]
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
“Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake —and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely.”
“Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: “...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn’t deserve the position.” (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”
He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (partially quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,”
Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated:
“Isn’t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. “(quoted in “What Marriage Is For,” by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:
“Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”
[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
Oh, he's a 'top' pollster all right.
In the gay community, a 'top' is a person who pitches.
He's a 'top' pollster.
It's tough to argue with history.
Why should we “embrace” something that the commie libs can’t even be honest about what it is? “Gay” my eye. Call it what it is. Homosexual “marriage”. I’ve never even seen a homosexual who was “gay”. They are all always pissed off about something.
Funny how every such concession we make to increase our poll numbers always fails to move the numbers at all. This “top” pollster has zero basis in facts and history, and merely believes that people do what they tell a pollster that they will do. Moronic.
Libertarians are not necessarily Amoral
One would not had been on this site since 2004
if they were Amoral
They often however believe acts of Governance
are not Compassionate or Moral
Governmental Law itself Cannot usefully
Legislate Morality outside, of course, of Natural Law
Homosexuals profoundly injure themselves
This I believe to be true,
Just look at Romans Chapter 1 to see the Morality of it
Other forms of self dispersal are also traumas to the Temple
Remove the Byzantine Law and Regulation
Replace it with Contract Law and
Enhance the penalties for injury to others
Marriage is a Permanent Union
between a Woman and a Man,
Sealed by God, not Government
A Secular Humanist woud be blind to this
F-This I will never support something immoral (which isn’t conservative) as “conservative”. THE Gop is nutz-at least a few elements of this decadent “Party”.
It ain’t “marriage” no matter what they say.
How can something that doesn’t exist be embraced?
I don’t much care if they want to get married, because Judgement Day will sort that all out. But the raising of children by LBGTQXYZ people is toxic parenting right out of the gate. If this nation can still rule out incest, it can certainly rule out gender dysfunction as a barrier to licit procreation.
Dude, marriage isn’t freedom! It is discrimination!
Oh, I quite agree...
And these viewpoints are a minority on this site
I am Really looking forward to the Return of Christ
And the Establishment of His Kingdom on this Earth
The Homosexual Agenda is Abhorrent
I would argue that the entire Byzantine Labyrinth of Regulation Is also repugnant
Their Agenda becomes unsupportable
when Inheritance Law, Forced External Contracts (Insurance),
"Ownership" of Children, is not forced by the State,
but becomes a matter of Contract Law.
Some forget that acts of Government are acts of Caesar
Government Compels, Takes, Punishes, and Kills
When You and I am not required to support the Consequences of their "Lifestyle"
Their destruction becomes an issue between them an God,
who they will meet shortly
Romans Chapter 1 is blunt on this subject (New Law)
As well as a plethora of data from Old Law
including the Seven Laws of Noah
All people originate from sexual relations, and so the laws which govern them are our most basic constitution, testifying to the Divine origin of humankind. Non-Jews are not commanded to marry, but they are encouraged to do so, and they are forbidden to have relations with the wife of another man. Male homosexuality, incest and bestial relations are also forbidden under the same heading, even though the desires for them are very different.
Must think on this position
Under Judaic Law, the Laws of Sexuality are the most basic "Constitution"
If they do then i will just stay home, what would be the point in voting?
A Democrat Sodom versus a Republican Sodom.
What the S.O.B.s do not understand is that the government should not have to grant a Incense or permit or embrace any particular action for any one to be free.
If some one hates God so much that they will take up Sodomy or what ever it is that queers do is called to show their hate toward God who is to stop them? they are free to do it other wise it would not be happening.
What gives the Government the right to force every one to accept the anti God lifestyle? the government has never in my life or any of my ancestors lives that i know about forced any one to except God, so what right do they have to force people to except the anti god ?
Are there any limits? Should brothers be free to wed each other? How about multiple spouse's of both sexes? Or, should we be free to marry a dolphin? A rabbit? Or a spruce tree?
The first amendment vote in NC had 2-1 support from blacks. Can’t be good for Obama.
If you saw the neighbor boy trying to mate with a knothole in the fence, or his cat, youd scream and demand that he get therapy. But if he tries to mate with the anal canal of another male, its OK. Trying to mate with another males anal canal is as insane as trying to mate with a knothole or cat. What kind of baby are they trying to produce.....a pencil?
We shall see many illustrations of the corrosive effect of the upcoming Romney nomination, such as this one.
Slowly but surely, what the “G” in “GOP” stands for is coming out of the closet.
You got that right if we can believe what the thread said then they are just going against what Georg Washington said
but actually we are too far on that road already.
Sure. The GOP should listen to a pollster who worked on both Bush campaigns where the candidate barely won losing the popular vote in 2000, and also barely won the second by 35 electoral votes and 2.5 points in the popular vote. Obviously(or not so obviously to the ITBWGOP), this is a recipe for disaster.
Amen to that, LJ!
This porker is so clever. Those arguments would trick the conservatives into permitting gay radicals to redefine marriage and family! ;) LOL
Where does GOPe get these losers? They should cease doing business with this manipulator of the manipulators.
I’m wondering about this - it’s a four minute news clip, hoping someone with more wits than I have will tell me if it’s accurate:
Reality Check: Why all RNC delegates are Free Agents and unbound
If they do, I am gone and never coming back.
As will I, and to be honest the only reason I'm still around is that the alternative is sooo much worse. Man, this lesser of two evils business really sucks.
Only God knows. I say we try to turn back while there’s hope for our kids and grandkids.
Giving any of the sick bastards the right of marriage leads directly to plural marriage. How could it not, you can’t in their eyes discriminate against Bisexuals by not offering them the variety of sex partners?
How can any one think that a man with two women or a woman with two men can be compared to a man with two men or a woman with two women?
It was the election results that FUBO was determined to distract us from. Witness the huge banner headline in the Times about the president’s preference.
The headline should have said The people of North Carolina reject gay marriage, and 20 percent of North Carolina Democrats voted “no preference,” and a guy behind bars with a ponytail got 41 percent of the vote in West Virgina, and Lugar is gone.
Those were my headlines.
To disregard their problems and cast them into the abyss by not treating them is an unjustifiable inhumanity.
Ron Paul is absolutely correct on this issue, get the state out of the marriage business. The right to marry is a G*d given right, one should not need to ask the state for a license to marry. Let the religious organization handle marriages like they have for hundreds/thousands of years.
Are you suggesting then that people should file their taxes as individuals instead of married couples?
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.