Posted on 04/03/2012 7:28:59 AM PDT by xzins
As the nation faces a crucial election in a little over six months, the Republican Party appears to be caving in on a social issue that many conservatives consider of major import: same-sex marriage. What the GOP felt strongly enough about some 16 years ago to lead the fight for passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), many members are beginning to consider an issue open to compromise. Not only do many Republican House and Senate members consider “gay” marriage a “dead issue,” according to Politico.com, but Republican leadership has “evolved” to the point that it has quietly worked “behind the scenes to kill amendments that reaffirm opposition to same-sex unions,” the politics website reported.
The change, of course, has nothing to do with personal convictions, but much to do with political expediency, as party functionaries fine-tune their agenda to attract a demographic that has been conditioned to tolerate — and even embrace — homosexuality as normal. While the GOP certainly cannot match the Democrats in their fawning attitudes toward the “gay” lobby, there has nonetheless “been an evolution in the political approach — and an acknowledgment of a cultural shift in the country,” Politico’s Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer write. “Same-sex relationships are more prominent and accepted. There are more gay public figures — including politicians — and it’s likely that many Washington Republicans have gay friends and coworkers. Just as important — there’s also a libertarian streak of acceptance on people’s sexuality coursing through the House Republican Conference.”
All of that adds up to an increasing number of “conservative” politicians jettisoning concern over the nation’s moral slide — of which tolerance for homosexuality is a symptom — in favor of a more pragmatic approach to their political positions. Representative Allen West (R-Fla.) demonstrated this “evolving” GOP mindset when he said, as quoted by Politico: “I personally have deep convictions about my children having a financially stable country that they can live in. I want my daughters to have the opportunities that I had, and that’s what concerns me. That’s what keeps me up awake at night, not worrying about who’s sleeping with who.”
Even lawmakers who are committed to protecting traditional marriage concede that the fight for family values is much more challenging than it used to be. Representative Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who sponsored the Marriage Protection Act of 2011, said that while he thinks defending traditional marriage is tied to the stability of the nation as a whole, the attention of many voters is presently fixated on the economy and getting America moving in a positive direction economically. “I don’t know that people’s opinions have changed that much,” he told Politico, “but what I think has happened is that people realize the dire straits this country has been in and they think we better deal with that before we get back to the social issues.”
Representative Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) noted that things have changed drastically since 1994, when President Bill Clinton introduced the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” compromise for homosexuals serving in the military. “It’s been realized that back in ’94, you could jump up on the House floor and pound your chest about [gay issues], and secure a good voter intensity, which you can’t do anymore,” Kingston told Politico.
It is clear that GOP strategists are beginning to switch their focus to a younger voter demographic. According to recent polls, 31 percent of self-identified Republicans now say they support same-sex marriage. But among 18-34-year-olds overall, that number jumps to nearly 70 percent.
One candidate who may be the beneficiary of such a sea change is GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney. While happy to capitalize on his moral Mormon roots, in reality the former Massachusetts Governor has always been about compromise, and the issue of homosexuality offers a prime example.
As reported by CNSNews.com, when Romney first ran for political office in 1994, challenging Ted Kennedy for his U.S. Senate seat, he set his sights on one of Kennedy’s most faithful constituencies, Massachusetts’ “gay” community. When a reporter for Boston’s Bay Windows homosexual newspaper asked the Republican candidate why “gays” should support him when Ted had always been a dependable pro-homosexual politician, Romney complimented the Democratic stalwart on that record, but suggested that he would do better, and that homosexuals could use a good lobbyist in the Republican Party.
“There’s something to be said for having a Republican who supports civil rights in this broader context, including sexual orientation,” Romney told the homosexual newspaper. “When Ted Kennedy speaks on gay rights, he’s seen as an extremist. When Mitt Romney speaks on gay rights, he’s seen as a centrist and a moderate. It’s a little like if Eugene McCarthy was arguing in favor of recognizing China, people would have called him a nut. But when Richard Nixon does it, it becomes reasonable. When Ted says it, it’s extreme; when I say it, it’s mainstream.”
Romney added, “I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican party and I would be a voice in the Republican party to foster anti-discrimination efforts.”
Such a voice out of Romney’s “mainstream” past makes him sound like just the man for the Republican Party’s new, updated image. It should also prompt true conservatives to pray fervently against his election in November.
What is the GOP known far and wide for doing? Anyone who answers caving and kissing obama’s and Democrat ass is on the right trail.
A very thoughtful post. I think something also to consider is that the population at large is more tolerant homosexuals. But the population at large is growing less tolerant of abortion. Look at surveys of young people on that subject and one will see a solid pro-life majority. Look at the bills in the various state legislature further restricting abortion. See the somewhat frightened quotes from Naral et. al. on the subject.
I think our elected representatives largely (!) cater to what the public wants. Right now, 30 years of propaganda is taking its toll and people don’t care about homosex. IMO, it will take another 30 years to reap those fruits and then the tide will turn.
They practically killed the military with the repeal of DADT, and we let that go without a whimper. It could not have happened without the support of significant support from the GOPe.
Neither do Conservatives with convictions. Only the unprincipled ambitious really get heard.
Santorum's not gone yet, though quite a few freepers are happy to join the GOP establishment in sneering derisively against "SoCons!" and whining "This is NOT the election year for that!!" (it never is, of course) and telling us the election is exclusively about FISCAL issues how we're doooooooooomed if we run a social conservative. Of course, these same "conservatives" were on the bandwagon for guys like Ahnuld Schwartzekennedy and Joe LIEberman, gloating about how wonderful it would be if we elected them. Hmmm.
Twenty five or so years of intense indoctrination in the government schools is all it took.
Soon your children will come home and tell you your car is too big, and you eat too much meat, then they will begin to remind you that old people have an obligation to die so as not to rob the young of their rightful inheritance.
In your heart you know that is right :)
Even Rush has recently said that he now realized that the Republican Party had NO ideology. The leaders of the GOP are hollow men, they talk the talk but do not walk the walk. However, now that people are catching on to the fact that not all that glitters is gold in the world of politics, hopefully there will be a spring cleaning in the Republican Party.
Americans in general are caving. Within a generation, there will be no meaningful resistance to the gay agenda. The schools went after the kids and the fight is all but lost. Tradional values will soon be seen as a relic of a bygone era, as social problems create a hell on earth. I feel really bad for my little boy dealing with the degenerate society that will be all around him.
What did Mitch McConnel and John Boener do to stop it?
It is like whoever choses the Republican leadership picked the two most useless marshmallows.
It is definately time for something new but it has to grow up from the grass roots. Maybe people could run for office on the local level with no party affiliation or perhaps regional parties, then during the national elections the regional parties would have to be wooed by the presidential candidates.
We have a real problem with pro-homosexual indoctrination in our schools and our entertainment media. We're seeing the results, and seeing them the hard way.
You're probably right on increasing opposition to abortion on demand at all stages of pregnancy. Better lifesaving technology for extreme premature infants, along with the widespread use of ultrasound photography, is willing the battle to convince people that “it's not a choice, it's a child.”
Of course, without changes in the law, all that change in public attitude does is lead people to say abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” — i.e., discouraging people from choosing abortion rather than banning abortion outright. But at least it saves some babies.
Love your tagline! There are so many FReepers who are ready to hold their nose and vote for yet another Liberal Republican. Your tagline needs to be a headline instead. We desperately need to have this discussion. Organizing a massive write- in if Romney is the nominee would be great. Any ideas?
.
.
.
Tagline too!
The "cultural shift in the country" has been the active project of the Progressive Left for a century by now, and is currently being magisterially manipulated, aided, and abetted by so-called President Obama and his coterie of supporters, who are seeded into all major institutions of American public life, public and private.
IMHO, this "president" is a black magician perpetrating satanic evil to subvert the very foundations of our free republic. And yet I hear that Romney is somehow the greater danger to the nation — so much so that "true conservatives [ought] to pray fervently against his election in November."
Which is tantamount to praying for Obama's re-election; and I don't think the nation as we know it can survive four more years of his "rule."
Just sayin'.... FWIW.
Indeed. Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
Hi, Sister. As you know, I am not a Romney supporter. And, yes, I do consider him every bit as bad as Obama. He’s Mussolini to Obama’s Stalin, imho.
He is a statist crony corporatist, and that makes him a national socialist in my book.
Nor am I. But it looks very likely he will be the nominee all the same.
MY candidate was Rick Perry, on the basis of his successful executive experience and his respect for the Tenth Amendment. Then he was gone. So I tuned into Newt next — and then tuned out when it appeared that the guy may be a tad "unhinged." Then I turned to Santorum. But I don't think he has a prayer of winning the nomination owing to poor organization and a dearth of cash.
It's been a very depressing primary season. I can't wait for it to be over.
At the end of the day, Romney may be the last man standing. At which point, for me, the question then becomes: Which is the lesser of two evils — Obama or Romney?
You say Romney and Obama are indistinguishable in that they are equally evil. There is not a shade of difference between them. I really have no answer for that, except to say I do perceive differences between them.
But I did come across an interesting quote today, in National Review, from Brad Todd, "a Tennessean Republican strategist":
This election is about putting out the fire, not whether we have a perfect fireman or not.[From: "Romney's Hidden Strength," by Jim Geraghty, NR, April 2, 2012]
To you it may look as if I am caving to the "spirit of the age" in saying I agree with Todd's insight. And that's one way to look at it.
But the way I look at it is, we really do need to "put out the fire" before the nation self-immolates. And that means that Obama and his coterie must go. To me, this is Job One.
It seems "the spirit of the age" — the anti-Christ — is precisely what informs this administration's plans and policies.
Thus Obama must go. Once again, I am disappointed that "my" candidate did not prevail in the nomination contest. I had to hold my nose to vote for McCain. I guess I'll be holding my nose this time out, too....
For me, the bottom-line is: Anybody but Obama. And I am not going to "sit this one out."
JMHO FWIW.
Thanks for writing, dear brother in Christ!
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.