Posted on 05/06/2013 2:59:10 PM PDT by EveningStar
A battle within the Republican Party over same-sex marriage is unfolding on two fronts, in public, and behind the scenes. In the latter case, one of the most influential players is a billionaire hedge fund manager largely unknown to those who don’t work in finance or mix with political mega-donors.
That man is Paul E. Singer, who over the years has used his wealth to spur Republicans to support gay marriage laws. Now, Singer is expanding his reach with the creation of an advocacy group which aims to spend millions influencing the legislative debate over same-sex marriage across the country.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Listen to the rinos speak, they are embracing libertarianism to explain abandoning conservatism. From abortion, to homosexuals in the military, to open borders.
He’s got a queer son. Yawn.
Personal relationships only? Why are the libertarians so prudish and authoritarian? What about persons and animals, if both sides are willing? Lots of people would like to officially marry their animals and force the rest of the world to recognize their love.
Political activity
Singer is an active participant in Republican Party politics.[25] He was a major contributor to George W. Bush’s presidential campaigns.[26]
In 2007, Singer led a financial industry fund-raising effort for Rudolph Giuliani, first as regional finance chair and later as senior policy adviser.[27][28]
In 2007, Singer provided $175,000 to support a petition drive for a proposed California initiative to apportion the state’s 55 electoral votes by congressional district. At least 19 of the state’s 53 congressional districts could be expected to vote for a GOP presidential candidate, enough to change the national results in a close election.[29]
President George W. Bush appointed Singer to serve on the Honorary Delegation to accompany him to Jerusalem for the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel in May 2008.[30]
In 2011, Singer played a major role in passing legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in the state of New York by, along with other major GOP donors, throwing his support behind it.[31] In 2011, he donated $1 million to Restore Our Future Inc, the Superpac supporting Mitt Romney.[32]
Lee Fang, writing for the progressive political blog ThinkProgress, claimed that “the rise of Singer’s political profile can be traced to his work as a top donor to pro-Bush character-assasination (sic) groups like the Swift Boat Veterans.”[33]
In 2011, Singer donated $1 million to Restore Our Future, a political action committee (PAC) created to support Mitt Romney in the U.S. Presidential election.[34] Singer was a major contributor to George W. Bush’s presidential campaigns and was appointed by President George W. Bush to serve on the Honorary Delegation to accompany him to Jerusalem for the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel in May of 2008..[26][35]
In 2012, Singer provided $1 million to start a super PAC named American Unity PAC. According to the New York Times, the PAC’s “sole mission will be to encourage Republican candidates to support same-sex marriage, in part by helping them to feel financially shielded from any blowback from well-funded groups that oppose it.”[36]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_E._Singer
Big-Government Romney was about as far from a libertarian as they come.
The problem is always going to be the biology. The reason for marriage is to ensure a stable situation in which the species continues and to protect the primary caregiver, the mother, and the child. It involves the union of male and female genetic material basic to all species.Hate speech. Probably get banned one of these days real soon. Frankly, as a society, we are done for.
I will not support any politician that supports faux homo “marriage”, regardless of party.
Most of the "libertarians" I know inherited their money, barely work, and cry like little babies every time they have to make out a quarterly tax payment.
They'd rather spend their money on pot, drugs and prostitutes, and ever dollar that doesn't go to fulfilling their craven desires they feel is a terrible hardship.
Gay marriage? If it leads to a more hedonistic society, they're for it!
When the founding fathers talked about "freedom", they weren't talking about getting drunk, smoking dope and having sex all day. Yet those who call themselves libertarians will look you right in the eye and say that's just what the American Revolution was about.
Um, I actually agree with that, for the most part: you see it's not government authority that defines the relationship that is marriage, it's God Himself, giving the government the power to "define, license or restrict" such is giving to it that which is not rightfully theirs. Moreover, suppose you gave those powers to a government perfectly agreeing perfectly with your own view-point... what would happen if the government came to disagree with you? They would simply use those powers given to them to "define, license and restrict" as they willed.
In short, not every power or authority is properly ascribed to the state.
PS "Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships" also means that they are free to suffer any consequences of that choice.
Not really, remember he was for homosexualizing the military and was pro-abortion, and he employed illegals, although that doesn't mean that he was as open borders as libertarians.
""Um, I actually agree with that, for the most part"
Thanks for admitting it, one of the frustrating things about most libertarians is their complete dishonesty and evasiveness, it is rare to have one speak openly.
Why not -- I believe that:
(a) the law should be blind,
(b) the law should be equitable,
(c) that people are, at their core, free-willed individuals, and
(d) that exercise of that will (c) will be rewarded/punished...
(e) the government does have the authority to punish evil doers [abuse of (D)], but
(f) it [government] is not free to [re]define good and evil as it has been doing (and will continue to do).
I also believe it's the height of stupidity to give the federal government the authority to allow a definition of marriage, precisely for the reason I gave, once they have that power someone will [ab]use that power to [re]define marriage. -- The whole "homosexual marriage" issue is therefore best recognized as a win-win for the statists: if you are able to prevent homosexual marriage then you have acknowledged the state's power over it, and therefore all they have to do is gain those positions in the state, or you fail and they pass it anyway (thus proving that the state has such power).
PS -- thanks for cutting off all the explanatory portion. [/sarc]
That's because they are complicit.
When someone supports the leftists homosexual agenda, we don’t really care what their excuses and explanations are.
Homosexuals in the military, adoption, polygamy “such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.”, you guys have quite an agenda.
Seems like we are overdue.
In a way this is good.
Cameron dragged his so-called “conservative party” into gay marriage in England.
The result: The rise of the UKIP - England’s version of the Tea Party and just as conservative as our Tea Party. The Tories (i.e., Cameron’s party) is about to end up on the ash heap of British history.
I didn’t know libertarians were “open border. In fact, the opposite.
I part ways with libertarians on special gay rights and some drug stuff (not all, but I concur the cost/benefit of the drug war has exceeded anything rationale), but on fiscal responsibility, border (as I understand their positions) and foreign policy (there are very hawkish libertarians) there generally spot on.
I don't support it.
Where would you get that idea?
I think that it properly belongs in the realm of the Church to alter society against it, not the State to force people to accept its definition at the point of a sword.
How does the Mosque (or church) dictate homosexuals in the military, or in adoption, or child custody, or all the other homosexual agenda stuff or polygamy.
As far as you supporting it, you made that clear on this thread, and I find it hard to believe that someone promoting the homosexual agenda is so concerned about the Mosque and church and wants them forbidding homosexuals in the military for instance.
Libertarianism on immigration
COMPLETE PLATFORM TEXT
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL ORDER
IMMIGRATION:
“”The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.””
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.