Posted on 08/26/2010 6:28:21 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
Same-sex marriage is back as a front-burner issue in American politics.
First, on August 4, a federal judge in San Francisco held that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, striking down part of the California Constitution defining marriage as one man and one woman. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ordered an expedited schedule to consider this case, with arguments to be held in December.
Second, former RNC chairman and 2004 Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman came out this week, announcing he’s homosexual, and pushing the Republican Party to support the homosexual-rights agenda. Republicans leaders are beginning to weigh in on where they stand, including on the agenda’s centerpiece: Redefining marriage.
The Republican Party has an official position on same-sex marriage. It’s found in the 2008 GOP platform, which is the clear and uncontestable Republican position until the 2012 convention. When one of your authors (Ken Blackwell) was serving as vice chairman of the GOP Platform Committee, there was a singular focus on producing a party platform that fully reflects the vast majority of Republican Party members.
The GOP platform could not be more explicit: Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The fundamental institution of human civilization should be preserved as it has been known through the entirety of American history and Western civilization. Supporters of same-sex marriage had the full opportunity to make their case to the party. They made it, and they lost.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
On this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2578608/posts?page=1
Over Time, a Gay Marriage Groundswell (NYT Uses Its Crystal Ball)
New York Times ^ | 8/21/10 | Andrew Gelman, Jeffrey Lax, & Justin Philips
Everyone knew he was gay before this, so why would “his appeal” change anything? He wasn’t even good at his job.
We have a process of judicial review. Once that process plays out to its final conclusion - a decision by the Supreme Court, there is (usually) only one way to remedy it - a constitutional amendment.
Given a sober analysis of the political landscape, and an competent understanding of the amendment process, it's not reasonable to conclude that there is the political will in this country to propose and ratify such an amendment.
Moreover, when looking at attitudes on this issue in varying demographics, but especially the youthful demographics, it's pretty clear that support for this issue will increase over time, not decrease - at least in the foreseeable future - the next 30-40 years. Is it possible that sometime in the distant future, attitudes will change again? Sure. But the immediate future is easy to predict.
It's not cowardice to acknowledge and understand reality, no matter how objectionable that reality may be.
Hmm, people infuence and make or break laws. People can have courage and principles and then things go well. People can have no principles or courage, and things go badly.
As I said, "realism" is very often a thin and transparent disguise for promoting and accomodating evil. And trying to take the heart out of people with principles. And trying to paint people with courage and principles as castle in the air people who are not nice hard down to earth "realists" such as your good self.... It's no different from trying to shut up debate by using the "you're crazy" method.
And having seen your comments since you signed up, I'd sat that is your purpose.
And delusion is promoting and accommodating fantasy.
It's convenient to try and marginalize someone who doesn't sign-on to your fantasy as something other than a conservative. Convenient, but intellectually empty as well.
You have yet to explain what laws you're going to influence, or break, to stop this and how you're going to pass them or break these laws. I'm all ears.
If you think you're going to "fight" for a constitutional amendment, terrific. I'd be curious how you're going to either call for a constitutional convention, or get two thirds of the both Houses of Congress to propose such an amendment and three fourths of the states to ratify the same.
It would be a win/win.
OR
We could go with the laws of God, which in this case says that homosexuality is an "abomination" and "destable".
Sticking with His Word is always "win/win".
(Go away Log Cabin Republican).
Fighting (moral) depravity with moral depravity. Why didn't I think of that!
Yet the CP heartedly accepted the endorsement of Ron “I am a lifestime member of the Libertarian Party” Paul.
Do I need to attach pro- homosexual quotes from Ron Paul to help get my point across? (they’re embarrassing to read).
Where is a conservative to go when the political party that he “thought” stood for decency accepts the endorsement of a confused little man such as Ron Paul?
You make no sense whatsoever.
Are you aware of that?
Fantasy?
Maybe you’re so used to talking in circles that you can’t think straight any more.
To you, yes I'm sure that's very true.
If you mean that he told libertarians to vote for a CP conservative, then what’s wrong with that? It wasn’t the other way around. Chuck Baldwin was very conservative.
Was the right answer for him to say, “No. Don’t vote for me.”?
In the words of Dr. James Dobson:
"Ron Paul is Unqualified: to lead a Sunday school class, let alone a nation. Ron Paul has long worked with the Libertarian Party, and he spoke at its 2004 National Convention, and yet he has never repudiated that party, even though...
The Libertarian Party is:
Pro-legalized abortion
Pro-legalized euthanasia (killing of sick and handicapped people, etc.)
Pro-legalized homosexuality
Pro-legalized pornography
Pro-legalizing drugs (Crack cocaine, etc.)
Pro-legalizing suicide
Pro-legalizing prostitution
Etc.
The Libertarian Party is an immoral, godless quasi-conservative organization which therefore has no understanding of righteousness in law.
Ron Paul believes abortion is murder, but then he says that he would let the states decide whether to murder children. Thus, he doesn't understand the God-given right to life. He doesn't understand the foundation for law. And thirdly, he doesn't even understand that the U.S. Constitution (for all its flaws) does not allow depriving anyone of life without due process of law, that is, without being convicted of a capital crime. Ron Paul doesn't understand that human rights trump states' rights, and no government should allow any subdivision to own blacks, rape women, or murder Jews, Christians, or children. If Massachusetts legalized the lynching of blacks, the federal government should use every means at its disposal, even to the sending in of the Marines to stop them; so also to protect babies. Ron Paul doesn't understand this, and so is in need of being taught, not in need of being elected. Ron Paul has little understanding of the utmost foundation of civil government, God's enduring command, Do not murder."
Link to Dobson article
Chuck Baldwin IS very conservative. Good conservatives don't "pimp" for votes.
Was the right answer for him to say, “No. Don’t vote for me.”?
"Thanks but no thanks" would have been an appropriate answer.
I fail to understand that you don’t want certain people to vote conservative.
Is it ok for those same people to vote Republican???
I’m just not getting what you’re saying.
Would never work. Blacks and Hispanics aren’t stupid — they know that Democrats are making gay marriage happen, but they’ll put up with as long as they like the economic benefit they (think) they get from Democratic officeholders far more than they dislike gay marriage.
LOL. Excellent parable my Christian conservative FRiend!
The Republican Party is "supposed" to be the mainstream party of traditional family values. When high profile leaders like Ron Paul and Ken Mehlman openly try to pervert those values by bringing in their own (anti-Christian) agenda, then it's time to say "Perhaps another party would be more appropriate for you".
The young people - under 25 - overwhelmingly favor either homosexual marriage outright, or some kind of civil union. BUT, those same young people are increasingly more pro-life than their parents - and technology (IMHO) is the reason for both.
Every few years, ultrasound technology improves remarkably, especially with the introduction of 3-D ultrasounds 10 years or so ago. Today, you can see an ultrasound of a 3-month old and it looks exactly like a newborn baby. That has a profound - although perhaps subtle - impact on the understanding of when life begins in the eyes of the more youthful generation.
That same 3-D ultrasound technology generation also happens to be the so-called "Will & Grace" generation. Because homosexuality is so ubiquitous in present-day entertainment, it's not viewed as a big deal to these kids. As George Will has put it (loosely) - homosexuality today is yesterday's left-handedness.
For these reason, I actually think that while homosexual "relationships" will become more accepted in the near-term, abortion will become less accepted. Technology cuts both way in the culture wars.
Conservatives on FR understand clearly that your comments are of the variety of “how many lawyers can prance on the head of a pin” and realize that your purpose is to obfuscate and pontificate as though you were the smartest kid in the class.
Most people just skip over your effusive self-important word jugglery-ism leftist twaddle.
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.