Posted on 09/18/2010 12:10:48 PM PDT by presidio9
At a time when gays have been gaining victories across the country, the Republican Party in Montana still wants to make homosexuality illegal.
The party adopted an official platform in June that keeps a long-held position in support of making homosexual acts illegal, a policy adopted after the Montana Supreme Court struck down such laws in 1997.
The fact that it's still the official party policy more than 12 years later, despite a tidal shift in public attitudes since then and the party's own pledge of support for individual freedoms, has exasperated some GOP members.
"I looked at that and said, 'You've got to be kidding me,'" state Sen. John Brueggeman, R-Polson, said last week. "Should it get taken out? Absolutely. Does anybody think we should be arresting homosexual people? If you take that stand, you really probably shouldn't be in the Republican Party."
Gay rights have been rapidly advancing nationwide since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas' sodomy law in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas decision. Gay marriage is now allowed in five states and Washington, D.C., a federal court recently ruled the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy unconstitutional, and even a conservative tea party group in Montana ousted its president over an anti-gay exchange in Facebook.
But going against the grain is the Montana GOP statement, which falls under the "Crime" section of the GOP platform. It states: "We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal."
Montana GOP executive director Bowen Greenwood said that has been the position of the party since the state Supreme Court struck down state laws criminalizing homosexuality in
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
so how ya going to feel about this subject when you come home to find some old queen trying to seduce your teen aged son?
Yet it is the perverts of the left who demand the right to flaunt their sexuality in public and to push it in the face of our children.
LOL!
Agreed, so long as they keep it in the bedroom and out of my face. The problem is that they refuse to do so.
Yes, as I read it, the title of the article is wrong - ‘homosexuality’ wouldn’t be illegal at all. It’s homosexual acts that would be illegal.
So a homosexual wandering through the jurisdiction wouldn’t be criminally culpable for being homosexual, but he or she would be potentially crimiinally culpable for engaging in particular homosexual acts in the jurisdiction.
It’s a distinction that the AP couldn’t, or wouldn’t, make.
Yet when homo parades are in town, police are told to overlook it......so much for your argument.
“I prefer to stay the hell out of other people’s bedrooms.”
Ditto.
You think FR’s rules are funny?
And is also obviously not the way you see it either. You should take the same warning as is being given to another poster. Your promotion of a 14th Amendment that protects homosexual acts in public will get you banned.
From what I read so far from you... I’ll just say good riddens.
“potentially crimiinally culpable for engaging in particular homosexual acts in the jurisdiction”
even in private?
we’ve already established that certain public acts are illegal for all parties
ooooh....Now your just tempting the admin mod...Not a wise thing to do...
For someone to have such an awful thought speaks highly of yourself.
I don't want the homo agenda forced in my face, nor the face of children in any way shape or form.
Take illegal drugs for example. I would certainly NOT want an heroin or crack addict in my schools "preaching" how normal and good it is to be an addict.
I view homo's in the same regard.
/nods head
“Your promotion of a 14th Amendment that protects homosexual acts in public will get you banned.”
Sorry, but I was not one of the six Justices on the SCOTUS who voted with the majority in Lawrence v. Texas.
I haven’t seen the proposed draft of the law, so I can’t say. And then there are Constitutional issues. So far, it seems that it is just a party position on a party platform, and that’s what I based my conclusions on.
I’m just basing my observations on the text of the article, not on any law (since no such law exists). You can’t establish anything about any proposed law since you haven’t seen the law yet. That has nothing much to do with what you feel ‘we’ve’ already established.
Michael
you are not my judge
I just want this clarified.
And certain public acts are outlawed
FR is a conservative site. We do not appreciate our members fighting against us on our conservative values and issues. If you wish to support homosexual marriage or homosexuals in the military or hate crimes against us for speaking out against government promotion of homosexuality that’s your business, but you’d better do it somewhere else and not on FR. If you value your posting privileges, that is. FR is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage, pro-military, pro-traditional American conservatism and it is a privilege to post here. Those who support the godless liberal/Marxist destruction of our free society and our country are free to exercise their free speech rights elsewhere. I won’t stand in your way.
Would you care to explain what is so funny about DJ’s post #69?
I can’t clarify what the proposed law would say. Only the political party can do that, if they try to work it through their legislature.
I don’t think that making homosexual acts illegal is a particularly good, or enforceable, idea, in any event. I was just pointing out that based on what the article said, homosexual acts would be criminalized, not the status of being a homosexual.
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.