Posted on 04/30/2013 5:33:37 PM PDT by markomalley
Former GOP vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., now supports the rights of gay Americans to adopt children, though he still believes marriage “is between a man and a woman.”
In a town hall meeting with constituents in Wisconsin on Monday, the House Budget Committee chairman said he has changed his mind on the adoption issue, even though his opinions on other aspects of gay rights have remained unchanged. To date, two Republican senators — Rob Portman of Ohio, who had been in the mix for Mitt Romney’s No. 2 spot, and Mark S. Kirk of Illinois — have come out in support of gay marriage.
“Adoption, I’d vote differently these days. That was I think a vote I took in my first term, 1999 or 2000. I do believe that if there are children who are orphans who do not have a loving person or couple, I think if a person wants to love and raise a child they ought to be able to do that. Period,” Ryan said in a video posted by the liberal website Think Progress. “I would vote that way. I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman, we just respectfully disagree on that issue.”
Ryan’s move to support gay adoption is a particularly interesting one, given his continued national ambitions and Portman’s reversal on gay marriage. Portman announced in March that his college-aged son, Will, is gay and that he could no longer oppose marriage equality.
In the past, Ryan has opposed almost every equality measure, getting a “0″ on the Human Rights Campaign’s most recent Congressional scorecard. He opposed the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” supported the Defense of Marriage Act and voted against the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Protection Act, which expanded federal hate crime laws to protect the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.
In his remarks Monday, Ryan said he has “always supported” civil unions. Though there is no evidence to support that, it’s a clear sign that the politics of the issue have changed and that even the most conservative Republicans need to appear more hospitable to gays and lesbians in order to expand their voting bloc.
“I’ve always supported things like civil unions where you ought to be granted certain legal privileges to be able to have benefits whether it’s estate planning benefits or visitation and things like that,” Ryan said.
But a story published by The Advocate, a gay and lesbian news magazine, when Romney named Ryan to his ticket, noted that Ryan supported a Wisconsin-based ban on gay marriage and civil unions in 2006.
“Reviews of Ryan’s record indicate that he has voted overwhelmingly against LGBT rights. He voted twice for the federal constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, and supported the ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions approved by Wisconsin voters in 2006. Ryan voted against “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal and hate crimes legislation, but he voted for the Employment Non-discrimination Act in 2007, when it included protections for sexual orientation but not gender identity,” the report said.
“Homosexual means those who engage is same sex acts.
Simple.”
Really? Do all heterosexuals engage in sex?
You guys don’t realize that mikey is just an old lefty troll, you won’t be converting him or getting him to make sense, or be honest with you.
Here is an old post of mine to him.
To: mike_9958
Actually, I mentioned much more than just your pro-abortion postings as you troll for social liberalism.
I see that you are an old time Romney supporter from 2007, and a long time Palin hater, even right now, since Romney lost, you are going after Palin with a new vigor, this is where we see your agenda, advance and defend Romney’s liberalism, fight and denigrate Palin and tea party conservatism.
Yeah, quite a little strategy you you work with year after year.
“”I wouldn’t be surprised to see that tactic again - “let’s paint the conservative as a moderate so all the conservatives stay home.”, anybody looking at your posting history sees the same, soft massaging, always to the left, including the old ‘I’m personally pro-life, but let’s drop it from the party’ type line.
You were anti-Palin and pro-Romney in 2009, and 2011.
You were wanting to remove abortion as an issue in 2003 and 2004, as part of your anti-social conservative work here at FR.
LOL, you really are dedicated to the guy and his liberalism.
Are you hoping that Romney runs again in 2016, or are you just going to fight to keep his liberal politics alive, and front and center until you can get someone like Christie or whoever your next Romney will be?
You were wanting to take abortion off the table when you were promoting Condoleeza Rice as your favorite in 2004 and at other times, including this thread, it seems to be a strong part of your agenda.
Wow, pro-Romney, pro-Condoleeza Rice, pro-Christie, but anti-Palin and social issues. God, you liked Harriet Miers’s conservatism.
Post after post, year after year of you complaining that conservatives were “eating their own” which, when it is a constant 10 year message you have been pounding here at FR, translates to ‘leave the rinos alone’.
You even do that thing over and over where you accuse the people who are conservatives, of being democrats, I suppose that you think that is some kind of spooky trick to fool people reading your posts.
59 posted on 11/18/2012 3:05:41 PM by ansel12
Desperate attempt to walk it back. Alas. Too late. You outted yourself last night and just could not leave bad enough alone.
Sniff - what’s that I smell?
“I think you need to explain why adoption based on sex practice is OK for homosexuals but not corprophagists.”
seriously Norm ? Is this a personal question ?
“Desperate attempt to walk it back. Alas. Too late. You outted yourself last night and just could not leave bad enough alone.
Sniff - what’s that I smell?”
no answer.... figured... and I don’t walk back... I win.
Do you people ever tire of avoiding questions that threaten your arguments? judging by the volume of reactions I get from y’all I’d say no.
You know...because homosexuality with out sex is celebacy. Which is currently fine for adoption. So to give a homo couple legal standing to adopt means it was granted based on sex alone. So what other sex practices qualify?
“You guys don’t realize that mikey is just an old lefty troll, you won’t be converting him or getting him to make sense, or be honest with you.”
Ansel, I thought I remembered you... you keep my posts - thanks.
You the guy who was ok with Obama winning a second term.... and you’re calling me a lefty troll - lol
And I was looking for you because the data did come from the media that I was right. You sound like you work for Plouffy to sow discontent in the conservative ranks and split it.... I thought I told you to go away.
“You know...because homosexuality with out sex is celebacy. Which is currently fine for adoption. So to give a homo couple legal standing to adopt means it was granted based on sex alone.”
So if two people of the same sex go for a civil union and then stop having sex are they still homosexuals, then can they adopt?
Ya know we are straying far from the original argument.... but I think you are helping me make my general point. Would you prefer giving a child to a terrorist?
Really can’t answer a simple question can you.
I am not answering you until I get an answer. I don’t play the ducking game. You choose to duck? Be my guest. Not like you have any support here to begin with so your failure is apparent to us all.
The #1 method of recruiting gay males is to molest them as children.
The data proved that social liberals are overwhelmingly lefties and voted Obama.
Here you are pushing homosexual adoption, just as you normally promote a trollist, lefty agenda at freerepublic.
On your home page, you say that you’re
“Old time conservative....
But...”
Everyone knows that everything before “But” is bullshirt.
Look at his posts, the guy is just trolling, not saying anything meaningful or useful, just baiting and trolling.
We see that with lefties who want to say more in promoting and defending liberalism here, but can’t, so they will get on a thread and take on everyone in vague, inconsistent, evasive, insulting, baiting, troll posts.
It isn’t to change minds or win arguments, but it releases some of their pent up anger and frustration at conservatives.
Where’d you go? Are you repenting?
Perhaps trying fruitlessly to figure out how a celebrate homosexual actually qualifies as a homosexual to begin with.
The very definition of “homosexual” means one who engages in same sex acts.
Simple.
The standard is “heterosexual”. Those who by choice or environment practice same sex acts practice homosexuality.
Everyone is born heterosexual.
I don’t want to convert him, I want him off of FR.
The #1 method of recruiting gay males is to molest them as children.
Well known and not arguable. Why this pro-homo troll hasn’t been banned I don’t know.
“On your home page, you say that you’re
“Old time conservative....
But...””
Really? is this what we are talking about now ?
“Where’d you go? Are you repenting?”
Sorry - had a little work to do.
where were we ?
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.