Posted on 08/06/2012 6:59:15 AM PDT by scottjewell
When Democrats announced that their 2012 platform would include a historic first — gay marriage written in as a plank — the reaction from mainstream Republicans was near silence.
There were no statements blasted out from Mitt Romney’s campaign. The same was true for the Republican National Committee. Romney has yet to address the the fact.
The pushback came largely from social conservatives and evangelicals, who pledged to make same-sex unions an issue going forward and insisted the stand will hurt Democrats.
But the comparative quiet from party leaders would have been unimaginable even four years ago, when public opinion hadn’t yet shifted so rapidly on a signature social issue. And it marks a dramatic change among some of the top Republican donors and opinion-makers, who are supporting same-sex marriage in state-based gay legislative and legal fights, even as the official GOP platform will remain centered on traditional marriage.
“Most Republican Party leaders seem to have lost the stomach for this fight,” said Dan Schnur of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
This is what seems so stunning to me: In 2008, liberals like Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, and Obama himself all said they believed marriage was between a man and a woman, as Kerry had said on '04. How things have changed.
The Constitution does not contain anything about marriage in the Federal sphere — at all.
We do not make government smaller by expanding it to cover marriage. This is something the states should handle, period.
Social issues come in great floods after a few cracks appear in the social consciousness.
I don’t think everyone believes that Gay marriage is an important issue, but enough people think it is important enough that they network every story now. The fact that so few protesters showed up at the Chick Fil-A kiss in, means that this movement has only just started to gather momentum.
It has all to do with money. The rich gays said they wouldn’t support Obama et al financially unless they came out for gay marriage. Their real constituency - black Americans - are poor. So under the bus they go!
That right there may be the only way the black vote will finally be divided between the two parties.
I don’t know... Ethics and morals in the United States have been on decline for a long time now. This is just another mile-stone on the slippery slope.
A reporter could safely paste this quote into articles on any number of issues with no fear of being wrong. For example, is anyone in the GOP talking about Obamacare any more? Mitt Romney sure isn't.
Everything else, including social issue reforms, will naturally follow.
Mitt’s single biggest donor owns wedding chapels that perform gay “marriages” every day. Nobody is going to talk about that either because quite frankly most conservatives are pure coward.
You are right. Huge amounts of money are being committed by wealthy gays to pass the marriage law in New York and get this plank into the Democratic platform. Yet in the end the American people will not endorse this nonsense and it will hurt the Democrats even if the Republicans they say nothing.
Obama's stance on this has always been misinterpreted, IMO. The standard Dem response to an issue like "gay marriage" or abortion is to say "I'm personally opposed to it, but think it should be made available to anyone who wants it"; which essentially makes them a supporter of the thing in question.
Yes, under the bus they go. Says a lot about Obama.
The dems just want to change the conversation from Obama’s horrible economic record to gay marriage. I’m glad the Romney team isn’t taking the bait and are sticking to the winning issue.
“Most Republican Party leaders seem to have lost the stomach for this fight,”
Many Republican Party leaders are probably closeted homosexuals.
Yes, I suppose that is what it amounts to. And he probably ran in ‘08 with plans to “evolve”.
Indeed, and the govt should get out of marriage altogether.
“The Constitution does not contain anything about marriage in the Federal sphere — at all.
We do not make government smaller by expanding it to cover marriage. This is something the states should handle, period.”
Yes, all true. Only problem is as with divorce in prior times (say the 1920s and ‘30s) or abortion if some states legalize something, others follow suit and then as time passes it becomes a uniform, national thing. And then federal.
You mean then that the movement against it is beginnig to gather momentum, correct?
Nope, I believe we haven’t seen the end of homosexual activism. I do think that a big loss for Obama would put a stop to it for a time, but the horse has left the stable.
Too many people either don’t see the dangers, or they don’t care.
Ah, so . . . after the "dangerous time to be a woman" ad, one of Mitt's people said, "That's ridiculous!" -- but Mitt said nothing.
Mitt's between a rock and a hard place both on gay marriage and abortion. His actions supported both, while his words opposed both (finally, in the case of abortion; he was a latecomer). Working both sides of the street only works until someone calls you on the issue!
I guess you may be correct. I do think gay marriage is an important issue but if the parties change due to economic issues that is important enough.
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.