Top Republican Pollster Advises Party To Embrace Gay Marriage

Mediaite ^ | May 12th, 2012 | Josh Feldman

[Ben Bolt]

A pollster named Jan huh ? I’m done .

[Theophilus]

Time to fire gay pollsters.

[manc]

and that person can piss off seeing as most of the country agrees to have just normal healthy natural marriage

[DBeers]

I think the logical and valid argument against homosexual marriage is what Ron Paul proposes. Just get rid of the government involvement in marriage! When you hand the marriage power back to the churches/religious groups, they will define what it is. And homo groups’ definition of their own version of the marriage will be pointless.

Ron Paul is wrong. What Ron Paul advocates is a government that abdicates its role to maintain social order premised upon inalienable truths. Ron Paul seeks marriage anarchy much like Libertarians seek a morally devoid anarchy unencumbered by any social order.

The problem is not government involvement -the problem is a government that ignores its place under the Creator and instead seeks to replace God with itself and redefine things such as marriage...

[DBeers]

Ron Paul is absolutely correct on this issue, get the state out of the marriage business.

Ron Paul is an idiot as are all Libertarians...

[DBeers]

So a man and woman, husband and wife, can’t have anal or oral sex because it doesn’t produce babies? Is that what you are saying?

What we are saying is give peace a chance...

Actually, what premises what you are saying is exactly what premises what leftist scumbags are saying...

The government promotes order and the common good. Children and families that produce children contribute to the common good. As such, the government promotes the environment and provides benefits and privilege at the behest of the people to married couples... NOT because married people are forced to produce children but because they can.

Which is COMPLETELY the point as to why government involves itself in any way with marriage --it is ONLY a male and female that CAN procreate. Government does NOT force people to have children. Choosing not to have children does not diminish the possibility that children can be conceived...

HOWEVER, two metrosexual critical thinking RINO's will NEVER and can NEVER procreate so why should society subsidize such selfish anal explorers?

P.S. Go back to DU.

[BlackElk]

Why is it no surprise at all that Jan van Lohuizen was involved in a campaign of Charlie Swish Crist or Ahhhhhnold Schwarzenkennedy who has never seen a moral he did not despise in public life including fidelity to his wife, and, of course, now working with Robamney who will take whatever "moral" position his electorate du jour may prefer.

Bill Buckley used to absolutely ridicule this sort of thing as "the Iron Rule that 50%+1 of the electorate just MUST be right" according to a certain kind of politician. Not the kind that any conservative should be caught alive or dead electing but, never mind.

I suspect you made an innocent mistake but are you really saying that Crist or Schwarzenkennedy won political victories in November, 2011???

There is a strong suspicion here that Mr. or Ms. van Lohuizen is taking other people's money to propagandize for his own desperately desired social agenda. It sure looks that way when you see how the electorate votes on the rump ranger issue every time it gets a chance.

As to "anal sex," it may be anal but it is hardly sex. Not between two men. Not between a man and a woman. Not between a man and his wife. Not between a man or woman and a barnyard animal or a household pet. Not between a man or woman and a space alien or ten of them.

The sad confusion between actual sexuality and a wide variety of perversions was the natural consequence of erecting chemical and/or mechanical barriers between the unitive and procreative functions of sexuality and the consequent popularization of fornication, adultery, and a wide variety of STDs. Ever meet a faithful married couple who, healthy at marriage, passed HIV, herpes, AIDS or whatever to one another? Neither have I. I suppose it is technically possible via that ever elusive excuse of the bad blood transfusion but I still have met none.

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that our world and our relationships would be a lot better off to the extent that we were willing to limit our creative imaginations as to sexual activity to that boring old agenda that God established for married couples according to His Law and for His reasons. Call me old-fashioned. Just the kind of boy I am.

[xzins]

So a man and woman, husband and wife, can’t have anal or oral sex because it doesn’t produce babies? Is that what you are saying?

Are you saying a husband and a wife are not going to have vaginal sex, that it is not an option for them?

[muawiyah]

If you knew those Frenchies you wouldn’t want to marry any of them either.

[muawiyah]

In America, in colonial times, marriage was pretty much a matter of people, their churches, and their tribes, villages, or plantations.

The reasons for what is known as civil registration are varied, but in general it was felt, and then demonstrated, that knowing who was doing which to who, and where resulted in not just a more orderly society, but also a more peaceful society where children could be cared for more assuredly.

Not that civil registration was an all encompassing cure for social pathologies, but it helped concerned folks find where the need was greatest.

I"m sure Ron Paul has never thought the process all the way through.

[sagar]

“The problem is not government involvement -the problem is a government that ignores its place under the Creator and instead seeks to replace God with itself and redefine things such as marriage...”

Actually, the problem is the government’s involvement. Let’s see, a government is what people make it out to be. So, people(or their elected officials) can decide what marriage it, giving equal protection to the homo coupling. What a government “should be” is not reflected in what a government actually is!

[upcountryhorseman]

Regarding the issue of homosexuality; first, homosexuals are
a small minority of the population. Their influence far
outweighs their numbers{ this needs to be brought back into proportion. Second, these “bedroom” issues are matters for the States to address, the Feds have no jurisdiction here.
(re. The Constitution) Homosexuality is an aberration and should be treated as such.

[DBeers]

I"m sure Ron Paul has never thought the process all the way through.

I agree. I tend to think he has not thought many issues all the way through because frankly as an anarchist he could care less of the negative consequences to social order.

[muawiyah]

He never had to think things through ~ as a Member of Congress they have staff people to do that. The Representatives usually do nothing more than a surface gloss of any issue.

[DBeers]

Actually, the problem is the government’s involvement. Let’s see, a government is what people make it out to be.

It seems you forget about self evident truths and inalienable rights. What about the Creator -do you as well forget about Him?

The government is under God and limited to the powers enumerated it by the people. The authority to redefine marriage to include homosexual sex practitioners comes from where? It does not come from God! It does not cme from the people!

SO -to reiterate my point regarding the government necessarily being involved as an agent tasked by the people to maintain moral order for the common good THAT “The problem is not government involvement -the problem is a government that ignores its place under the Creator and instead seeks to replace God with itself and redefine things such as marriage...”

[central_va]

They are starting to believe their own bullshit.

[AmericanInTokyo]

"Assume the position".

They really know how to scare off the Base. Is John McCain coaching them? What IDIOTS.

[SecAmndmt]

If it is true that homosexual “marriage” is gaining popularity, it isn’t that surprising. Media, corporate America, government and government schools promote the homosexual agenda, and they have been doing it for as long as I can remember - at least 20 years.

Self-styled homosexuals have the same freedom as the rest of us, to marry a person of the opposite sex.

The most sympathetic and loving thing we can do for homosexuals is to pray that they turn away from a very destructive lifestyle.

State level marriage laws and DOMA are important but social conservatives (I am one) need to realize that whatever moral authority we claim to have on this issue is badly undermined by our high divorce rates, no-fault divorce, fast-track divorce, and the power of the “family” law courts and attorneys in divorce and child custody. If there is a conservative movement to reform this system, to make divorce more difficult, I am not aware of it.

[SecAmndmt]

Amen to this post, especially to the last paragraph.

[BlackElk]

Two problems:

1. The Tenth Amendment approach on rump-ranging posing as "marriage" would not end the subject. Consult Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) for a probable liberal toolbox by which the decision of one state (say Robamney's Taxachusetts) can be imposed on the others. Then check out the text of the Fourteenth Amendment (the most resourceful toolbox ever possessed by liberals and now by social revolutionaries) which requires in its Equal Protection Clause (last clause of Amendment XIV, Section 1) that all persons within a state be provided with "equal protection of the laws." If a pair of Massachusetts rump-rangers pretending to civil "marriage" as allowed by Massachusetts authorities, move to a more sensible place like Alabama or Mississippi and the state to which they move refuses to "recognize" their "marriage," then it is off to court and Alabama or Mississippi can be crushed into line by the lavenders using the fedcourts.

2. Once we start down the Tenth Amendment road, we are in for more trouble. If you consider abortion a "bedroom issue" (I don't know if you do or don't) the Tenth Amendment will mean giving up forever the noble attempt (short of an unlikely actual federal constitutional amendment putting a stop to abortion once and for all without any possibility of "local option"), the attempt to end the holocaust of the unborn. NYC will dominate NY state into retaining abortion "rights" as will Los Angeles and San FranSicko and La Jolla will dominate California and Chicago will dominate Illinois into guaranteeing that the baby-killing operations continue unimpeded. Also Vermont, Maryland, Hawaii, and other states may do likewise. If you can drive or ride from New Hampshire to New York, you will get that abortion. Nevada to California. Missouri, Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota to Chicago, etc.

Face the fact that we have a federal judiciary that is absolutely run amok, is not effectively checked or balanced by other powers, and, for the sake of this nation's future, needs to be brought to heel.

God bless you and yours!