Posted on 02/28/2009 4:20:25 AM PST by GonzoII
The chairman of the Republican National Committee has shot down hopes by minority homosexual groups that the party will open its "big tent" to endorse "civil unions" or homosexual marriage.
"What would we do that for? What are you, crazy? No." Michael Steele told radio talk show host Mike Gallagher.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
LOL! bump!
“Because that’s NOT the purpose of “civil unions” — the purpose is coerced acceptance of homosexual practices and all the associated deviancies.
And that IS my point too. If the gov’t wants to promote civil unions to confer legal benefits (for instance, access to medical records), it shouldn’t be a gay thing. It should be broader and serve a practical purpose in the lives of any citizen that would benefit. As a gay only thing, I would oppose it. As a citizen thing, I have no problem.
I am also pro-life. The GOP should always advocate for life.
Yes, I am a conservative but definitely exhibit a libertarian streak. I agree with Steele and conservatives on most issues but this is the one issue that I am willing to concede. I ask myself: How would civil unions impact my life? Answer: none. Gays already live with each other, commit to each other and leave their wealth to the other in a will.
I know why Steele said what he said. He is already perceived by social conservatives as ‘soft’ on social issues. He can only go far without invoking stiffer opposition to his stewardship.
I see it didn’t take long for you to be labeled a “hater”. I don’t know you but I seriously doubt that you hate Romney, I know that I don’t hate him, just the liberalism he represents.
Meghan McCain is deeply saddened.
“Why not allow civil unions for widow sisters who look out after each other?
Why not a group of three anything who want to make a civil union pack and mutually commit to care for each other?”
Thank you, I have been saying this for years! There is no earthly reason why any two (or more) people shouldn’t be able to enter into a contract whereby they accept each other as “next of kin” or dependents, kind of like adopting each other as family. That is only reasonable, as there are many elderly people who are widowed and depend on their friends as much as their own relatives, and a myriad of other situations I can think of where any person might want any other human in their lives to be the ones to be at their bedside when they become ill or make decisions for them should they become incapacitated, and any adult should be able to choose and designate that person, be it their cousin, roommate, best friend, or whomever. And if they are willing to pay the premiums, any adult should be able to claim said person as a dependent on their insurance policies. Just my .02, but I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Because that’s what their whole purpose is. They could care less about “monogamy”. Their entire agenda is to redefine our culture.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Checkout: http://SilencingChristians.com
We need to keep pressure on the RINOs! They have the bad habit of saying one thing and doing another... Call them and email every chance you get. We're fed up with moving the goal post to the left.
Oh that's how to build credibility. A bit shrill aren't we?
Hopefully this will cut some of the shrillness out of the “GOP IS ALL A BUNCH OF STINKIN’ RINOS!!!!!” nonsense by some of the FReepers on here.
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.