Posted on 07/14/2014 8:53:25 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Inside the offices of Republican gay-rights groups, a strategy is forming to convince party leaders to strip opposition to gay marriage from the GOP platform.
The target, operatives say, is to see party leaders drop their support for a gay-marriage ban in time for the Republican National Convention in summer 2016.
It's a long shot, but Republican gay-rights lobbyists think they can build on the momentum provided by courts nationwide and the belief that, philosophically, the GOP's social conservatives are fighting a battle that puts them well out of step with the majority of the country, and that could demographically doom national aspirations.
"The ground has never been more inviting and welcoming to someone changing their position on the issue," said Marc Solomon, a former Republican Hill staffer, now with Freedom to Marry. "Where the polling is on the issue, it shows that we have a real legitimate chance at victory in 2016."
A group called Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry is part of the effort to remove the traditional-marriage plank from the GOP platform at the Cleveland convention. Already, the group has met with state and county party officials in New Hampshire, and they're planning trips to Iowa in August and to South Carolina and Nevada in September.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
The GOP-e has crossed over to the dark side. In a quest to hold onto ever diminishing government positions, they will abandon whatever principles they may have once had, solely to enrich themselves and their interests, and play the petty part of loyal opposition. There is only one political party in the United States now, just like any communist country has ever had: the government party.
I think this would hurt the GOP even more.
This is one of those issues which is a political looser for Republicans. It is politically wise to stay away from polarizing positions if you want to win elections. You don’t have to support something you believe is wrong and you don’t have to oppose it either - at least during an election. The way to improve any situation is to gain the power to influence that situation through legislation and court appointments and you can’t do that if you loose elections. Being rigid and self-righteous is a sure way to loose elections.
The GOP needs to get ahead of this bandwagon—maybe put it in the platform that ONLY gays can run for office or sit on the Supreme Court or something similar that would sound ultra-progressive. That’ll surely bring in the votes.
And once people realize you don't stand for anything at all, they'll be energized to come out and vote for you. Good thinking.
um, what?... nope
At one time THEY were Demonrats- with Demonrat ideas-
After losing BIG TIME under CLintooon- the GOPe
gladly walked LITTERALLY Hundreds of these loooosers across the aisle - and “made them GOPe’s “
look it up -in my state- we got Norm Coleman- —
Now he was not an absolute Marxist, like Franken-
But he IS a DEMOCRAT! how about Schwarzenegger?
He is Married to the Kennedy clan!!- still calls himself
a repub.
The war has finally arrived at our doorstep. This issue, along with abortion, the Second Amendment, national defense, etc. are hills I will die on. If the Republican Party surrenders on these issues, I will find a new banner to fight under.
They want to capture both parties and shut down any real power of the dissenters.
Rinos and Libertarians against conservatives.
RAND PAUL:
“”Evolve, adapt or die. That is the fate of our current Republican party. We must evolve as a party and find a way to attract millennials to the conservative movement or we will never succeed in realizing our ideals of individual freedom and freedom from government interference.””
“I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues,” Paul advised. “The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues.”
That is ridiculous, how do we choose a presidential candidate for instance, if we don’t know his views on the homosexual agenda?
every issue is polarized
You suggest a political party stand for nothing?
Cutting taxes - No position
Cutting spending -no position
Secure Borders - no position
Welfare reform - no position
Islamic terrorism - no position
I can see the voters lining up for that, not
“It is politically wise to stay away from polarizing positions if you want to win elections... The way to improve any situation is to gain the power to influence that situation through legislation and court appointments and you can’t do that if you loose elections.”
Then how do you know that you are electing an actual alternative?
Setting aside the moral discussion, there’s a practical problem with this as well: Libs and Gay Rights groups have already said simply dropping opposition isn’t going to be enough. There was an article posted here a few months back (cant remember its title) to the extent that Libs are now looking to a broad unconditional surrender, not any sort of negotiated settlement.
Which is how they operate. They set a bar for something. Then, when theres a chance of us meeting the bar they raise it. Perhaps a better analogy would be Lucy and the football. As long as we’re playing their game on their field, they’re going to win. And win dirty. Because they can.
And once people realize you don't stand for anything at all, they'll be energized to come out and vote for you. Good thinking.
There are plenty of issues which are not socially polarizing: jobs, defense, scientific research, sound monetary policy, realistic legal immigration policy, etc.
Just because you don't want accommodate political opponents by fixating on socially divisive, politically loosing issues does not in any way mean you stand for nothing.
jobs
That is divisive. Democrats want higher taxes and harsher regulations and government jobs. Conservatives want the opposite.
defense. Are you kidding?
science research- As long as it’s manmade global warming and embryonic stem cells, the left wants it funded.
monetary policy- print dollars and stuff them in the stock market and pretend their is no inflation.
immigration policy - You haven’t been paying attention have you? You don’t think there is a divide there??
I think it does. It means you just put your finger in the air to decide which stand to take on questions that will impact society for generations to come. I have no use for people like that and will avoid voting for them. I’d rather stay home or skip the race, just as I did when the GOP ran Mitt Romney. I was not alone.
You do your homework. What are this person's qualifications. What has this person achieved. What is this person's character. Is there anyone better qualified to do the job.
There were "conservatives" who did not support Gov. Romney because he was a Mormon (of course there were other reasons also) but there is no question that this country would have been much better off if he had won the last election.
LIBERAL
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.