I've learned from reading these threads that I am a RINO because I have somewhat differing views (though not much different) on abortion, and - I admit - no definite opinion on gay marriage as of yet.
I do not agree with this RINO (Republican in Name Only). That doesn't make any sense.
Still and all, I am Republican (moderate if one wants to call it) and bristle at the notion that I - as a moderate if one must - muddy the waters for the Republican party.
There are a number that use these designations indiscremately setting impossibly high standards.
"RINO" in traditional sense would be someone without loyalty to the Party. Bloomberg is a true RINO. He converted in name only because he couldn't gain distinction between a crowded Democrat field. Rudy is NOT a RINO. He's very loyal to the Party.
"CINO" in traditional sense would be someone that pretends to conservatisism when Liberal in practice. Democrats as well as Republicans have fallen into this category. Daschle pretended to be a conservative in his own state.
I think many fall into a latter category- Opportunists. McCain is the prime example of this.
The idea that one cannot be a Liberal in the Republican Party, or a conservative in the Democrat Party, is ludicrous. If they are loyal to their party and seek it's expansion they are Republican. If they don't try to sabotage the Party Platform, they are Republican. This doesn't mean they can't have disagreement and fight to implement their belief, but there is a line between that and selling out to the Dems. The trouble occurs when someone is blacklisted simply because they are conservative or Liberal, even though they have been true to the Party. This is what happened to Zell.
IMO, the best thing that could happen would be if conservatives and Liberals had a voice in both parties. If that occured partisanship might ease a bit since enough people from each party would crossover on policy votes, so that each party could claim success or the high ground if it turned out to reap reward or detriment.
This is unlikely to occur since the Democrat Party has become intolerately rigid. At present time the Republican Party has not followed that fate. Unfortunately, with one Party regidly Liberal maintaining a "Big Tent" can be harmful to conservatism's advancement since we can't rely on support across the aisle.
So, I understand both sides. I understand why people are determined to make the Republican Party pure in matter of self preservation. Yet I'm also of opinion both parties would be healthier if they contained both Liberals and conservatives. Republicans have a delicate balancing act since Democrats have relinquished their duty in this aspect. The corruption of the Democrat Party by socialistic anti-war anti-American elements has hurt this country. They need to be cleansed from that party for the welfare of us all.
on gay marriage. Marriage was originally not controlled
by the State.Not until the Civil War did any State issue
marriage licenses.It has been defined by Congress (1861) and the Court most noteably Murphyv. Ramsey and others,1885
as the union of one man and one woman in Holy matrimony.
the arguement pressed by the homosexuals that interracial
marriage was once taboo. Is as mythical as the claim "being
gay is just like being black." Never met a black (Michael Jackson included ) who ever changed their race. Never met a
homosexual who did not change their orientation at will.
Marriage was defined by Moses,Jesus, and the Apostle Paul
as th eUnion of one man and one woman.and this understanding was reflected in American Law by James Wilson
who declared under our law marriage means the two are one.