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.”
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.
Bingo!
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.]
5.56mm
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”.
J.S.
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!
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.