Conservatives Increasingly Wary of Opposing Gay Marriage
"Conservatives?"
Posted on 06/20/2014 5:12:23 PM PDT by madprof98
Conservative Republicans seem to be surrendering in the fight on gay marriage.
At an annual conference this week for the Faith and Freedom Coalition, the religious conservative organization led by former Christian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed, the wave of court rulings over the last year that have struck down gay marriage bans from coast to coast went almost entirely unmentioned.
Speaker after speaker – including a parade of possible 2016 presidential candidates – served up plenty of criticism of the Obama administration and its policies. But none condemned “activist judges,” as Republicans like George W. Bush have in the past. A handful of them invoked the phrase “traditional marriage” or suggested marriage was between a man and a woman, but the leading presidential hopefuls -- including Kentucky’s Rand Paul, Texas’ Ted Cruz, and Florida’s Marco Rubio -- completely avoided the subject.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
The nation is under the control of evil. Very sad days ahead for America.
‘Conservatives” are not. Those who deign to speak for them are.
Conservatives ARE NOT increasingly wary.
Conservatives remain steadfast in their opposition.
It’s the RINOs who muck it up for everyone.
Exactly!
That’s why we need to kick those blankity Blanks to the curb too.
Rome falls
B/S. If they don’t oppose, they’re not conservative.
The conservative who opposed “civil unions” or some other mechanism by which gay couples could have the same privileges and protections as heterosexual married couples bear some responsbility.
By refusing a solution that did not redefine marriage everyone became (rainbow) painted into corners.
(1) Gay Marriage
(2) ObamaCare
(3) Debt Ceiling
(4) Budget Sequester
(5) Destruction of the Coal Industry
(6) Enforcing Immigration Laws
The good news:
We still support gun rights and the Keystone Pipeline.
Sorry, no. The very mention of civil unions these days throws the gay mafia into fits of rage. The very same people who proposed such solutions in the past now scoff at them as “separate but equal.”
“Civil unions” were meant to be an incremental step toward the ultimate goal of same-sex marriages.
But thanks to activist judges, they were able to skip a step.
Not hardly.
Anyone fine with a cultural deviancy like homo-marriage just doesn’t qualify as a “conservative” to begin with.
This is NBC propaganda. It’s what the Left does - try to sow seeds of doubt and declare that it’s “inevitable” and then conservatives accept the narrative.
Let me make this profoundly clear.
I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A PRO-HOMO CANDIDATE.
PERIOD
This will be the death of the Repubicans. They will try to appeal to rats who will never vote for them, and as a consequence, sane people like me will never be behind them.
And I say this to the lurking Freepers who do not care about this issue (you know who you are), the GOPs retreat from this means much more than collapsing on the marriage issue.
Republicans have criticized these rulings as the result of activist judges acting unconstitutionally and abusing their authority. If they abandon that, if they say that this will be allowed to fly, they have NO grounds to oppose ANY court backed agenda and that includes Obamacare. That includes any future decision by a liberal court to deprive you of your firearms. You will have submitted to the kritarchy, a rule of judges.
I spit on the agenda, and its sympathizers within the party, of which many appear on Fox.
One issue not much discussed in the remarks of any of the speakers who graced the stage was that of gay marriage. Asked whether he would have liked to hear more about it, [Ralph] Reed is agnostic. He says he defers to the judgment of the politicians with regard to “what issues they want to stress.” He knows, he says, that virtually all of the guests this weekend “believe marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, that’s what the Republican platform says, and I don’t expect that to change.”
I could have tolerated civil unions.
Had our side been more willing we might have been able to have civil unions for all be the definition of the State and allow Marriage to remain defined by the Church (and faith communities).
That’s not to say that all the gaysbians would have been satisfied; but I suspect the present mess could have been postponed for a generation or more.
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.