Politico is right: Gay marriage will destroy the Republican Party

http://www.gopusa.com ^ | June 2, 2014 | Bryan Fischer

[NKP_Vet]

Earlier this week Politico featured a David Lampo piece, "Gay Marriage Will Destroy the GOP." Politico is exactly right that gay marriage will destroy the GOP – but for precisely the opposite reason Lampo imagines.

In his article, Lampo argues that if the GOP does not embrace gay marriage, it is doomed. The truth of the matter is exactly the opposite: it is embracing gay marriage that will doom the GOP and consign it to the ash heap of history.

Politico wants us to believe the tide of history is inevitable, and the GOP either must get on board the gay love boat or get swept out to sea where it will disappear beneath the waves.

It would be one thing if Politico had the best interests of the Republican Party at heart, but it does not.

[be-baw]

The best thing the GOP could do would be to ignore gay marriage. Like it, ot not, its pretty much out of their control. When forced, candidates should say it’s a states’ issue

[hinckley buzzard]

Pretty much all BS. Most people have little investment in this issue, whether they are pro or con. Like global warming, people will give an opinion if pushed but few actually give a sh*t.

[Oliviaforever]

The author is right on target.

the GOP has no choice but to stand against gay marriage and make the fight for Traditional Marriage a centerpiece of their campaigns in 2014 and 2016.

[Oliviaforever]

The author is right on target.

the GOP has no choice but to stand against gay marriage and make the fight for Traditional Marriage a centerpiece of their campaigns in 2014 and 2016.

[Colonel_Flagg]

When forced, candidates should say it’s a states’ issue

So state amendments and measures can then be overturned by activist judges. No thanks. Stand for something, candidates. Stand for morality. You might be surprised at what people think.

[chris37]

I do not think that there are any such things as state’s issues any longer.

We are subjects of the beast.

[Olog-hai]

Correct; just as has been happening, too. Just happened to Pennsylvania.

People are getting angry because of the supposedly “conservative” politicians being apathetic about morality.

[Vince Ferrer]

Progressives have a favorite phrase, that of being "on the right side of history." Progressives believe in linear history, and that they are the vangaurd of that history. Yet actual, real history is nothing like that.

Mayans didn't build these temples in the forest, they built them in the middle of their cities. These cities were large, and were more densly populated than Los Angeles is today. Then in a span of 200 years, the population dropped by 90%, and their culture was gone. They never recovered, and the forests took the cities back. The Mexicans and Central Americans live around these ruins, but they are not really the same people and culture, even if they are directly decended from them. History was not linear for the Mayans. It wasn't linear for the Russians, or the Romans, and it won't be for us.

For all their euphoria, progressives can't see the future implications that all of their engineering results in sterility of the population. They offer abortion, birth control, divorce and single parenthood, pornography, STDs, gay rights, student loan debt so people won't start families, high housing costs, low wages, and unemployment. None of that promotes forming families. There is no future for progressives.

The only way we think we are getting by in America today is through immigration, but that doesn't really count. What is happening is that at such a high rate of collapse, we are being replaced by immigrants, not enhanced.

Progressivism is a philosophy of death, and we can't survive by being a me too party. We have to step outside of the culture of death and let it collapse. Either conservative or immigrants will inherit the country after the collapse, just as the Christians inherited Rome.

[firebrand]

Problem is, the gay activists have us by the politically correct s&c’s. Homosexuality is so widespread now that almost everyone knows someone personally who is gay. People don’t want to risk being a b-word. That is why we have probably lost this one.

[firebrand]

Good thoughts.

[stanne]

Candidates need to focus on the constitution.

If the constitution were adhered to morality would be back in the hands of the people where it belongs.

Roe v wade would’ve been decided correctly, which it wasn’t and judges would not be overturning states’ decisions

All a candidate has to do is stay with the focus of the job description otherwise it becomes a war over who’s will wins the day and that is not working. The libs have the media so public opinion is under their control. We can’t win that.

Swaying opinion to a conservative or liberal set culturally is tge job of the culture not the candidate. More important to remember this when we really can’t win that fight in the political arena

[Robwin]

Good post, V Ferrer, and if things continue on the track we are on it won’t be long before the forests take back what we, too, have created.

[Viennacon]

Sadly I think you’re right. There is a compelling argument for candidates to be much more oriented to putting issues down to ‘states rights’, but this is totally disingenuous as long as still far too many Republican governors and Republican controlled state legislatures are cowardly in the extreme. There are good signs, for instance I think its Kansas trying to now impeach half their judiciary over liberal votes. Until we really see states stepping forward and actively asserting sovereign authority, its hard for the GOP to make the case here, because you cannot refer the issue down to bodies that are essentially subservient to the federal government.

I think this is itself a strong argument any contender could make and I’ll be interested to see if any candidate has the acumen to take it on and boldly stand for the total return of legitimate authorities stolen from the states back to the states.
It’s unfortunate you then run into the sacred cows of Medicare and Social Security which were essentially used not as most people think, to primarily enslave individuals by stealing their money, but primarily to enslave the states by having the citizenry of each state reliant on the federal government for their retirement. This meant that if the state went up and challenged the federal government in a meaningful way, it would not have the support of the people should the federal government threaten to cease payments to the people of that state. It’s like a permanent hostage scenario.

This has led to the de-sovereignization of the states and disarmed one check and balance on federal power. The more I think about such things, the more any potential GOP candidate is going to have to impress me in order to warrant my vote and support. I don’t want platitudes and slogans and ‘sticking it to Hillary!’ to be the main concern of primary voters. The concern is, is the candidate aware of the truth behind America’s problems, and do they have the iron will to solve them.

[steve86]

almost everyone knows someone personally who is gay. People don’t want to risk being a b-word.

I guess I am the rare person who doesn't know someone personally who is gay and who doesn't care if someone calls me names.

[Paulie]

And the basis for your enlightened opinion?

[steve86]

Yes, good comment.

[chris37]

I think you are precisely right.

I do not think for one second, and this is a fairly recent revelation that I have had, that this country’s problems are going to be solved via elections.

I’m not even really sure that they are even solvable at this point, and I think I am more of the opinion that this house of cards is going to fall. Hard.

The people of this country have been so thoroughly conned and lied to so well that those lies have become their belief system. Those lies have taken root in their souls.

I really think that our motto should be changed to In Lies We Trust, because that is exactly the case in America.

I don’t even know if I want to waste what time I have left trying to distinguish one lying candidate form the next, because most people in this country do not have even the slightest clue as to what is going on. It is quite literally like they are living in The Matrix for real.

I do even know what else to say. This is a bad place, and there are very bad men here.

[nathanbedford]

The battle against homosexual rights has been lost because the opponents of those rights have never been able to make a persuasive case that permitting sodomy directly adversely affects the lives of voters. Specifically, the case has never persuasively been made that homosexual marriage somehow destroys the institution of marriage much less the marriage of two heterosexual voters.

Increasing voter support for homosexual rights can be traced to the absence of harm to a direct victim. Social conservatives, of whom I count myself one, will be well served to resist the temptation to legislate their version of morality which is indirectly good for society but for which immediate, direct an identifiable harm is so difficult to prove.

For one thing, this tendency is in philosophical opposition to the essential conservative laissez-faire attitude toward individual choices in business dealings, familial responsibilities, free speech and choices in religion, disposition over property, and, generally, matters of personal liberty. It leaves an increasing demographic block of secularized voters feeling they could be the next victim to someone else's version of immorality. Indeed, there is a whole body of voters who believe it is tolerant and even desirable to condone deviancy. They think, with some justice, that the proper venues to decide these matters are found in churches and the public square but not in legislative chambers or courtrooms.

The party of liberty is seen as the party of oppression.

Where such harm plainly exists, as in abortion, conservatives are on safe ground and are well served to vigorously advocate on behalf of of innocent victims.

[BeadCounter]

Once I saw who wrote it, I knew what his angle would be. I read Bryan Fischer’s twitters almost daily.

He has said so much as this before: https://twitter.com/BryanJFischer

Originally, he’s from Idaho and his father was a conscientious objector in World War II but I think his father still served the war effort, just didn’t fight, red cross, medical, something like that.