Why Republicans Could Have A Pro-Gay Marriage Presidential Candidate In 2016 ZOT!

The Daily Caller ^ | 2014-10-14 | Alex Lundry

[e-gadfly]

This may be the game-changer the GOP needs, especially when one considers the current state of public opinion and the trend lines:

By the end of 2012, 12 states and the District of Columbia had support for same-sex marriage at or above 50%. Of these 12 states, all currently perform marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. Thirteen additional states presently are within 5 percentage points of majority support. In the last eight years, every state has increased in its support for marriage for same-sex couples with an average increase of 13.6%. If present public opinion trends continue, another 8 states will be above 50% support by the end of 2014.

The obvious historical parallel is also interesting in this regard:

[Responsibility2nd]

Complete Bull Crap. For now.

I have no doubt the Repugs MIGHT one day have a serious contender for the top slot who is pro-faggy.

But not in 2016.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

We had one in 2012 and probably in 2008 for that matter. In fact, we probably had one in 2000 and 2004 if you ask him today.

[rhinohunter]

Their 2012 candidate was pro-homo.
Why wouldn’t the 2016 candidate be also?

[Reddy]

Comparing the acceptance of interracial marriage and homosexual marriage is like comparing apples to oranges.

The better comparison would be abortion.

And public opinion is now changing AGAINST abortion.

[MarkRegal05]

If you had told me ten years ago that the state-by-state map would look like that, I would’ve been incredulous.

This all-out campaign by the media, the Democrats, academia, with help from complicit Republicans or Republicans willing to look the other way.. it worked. The homos had a plan, and it worked.

But at some point, the tide has to shift.

[Dilbert San Diego]

We could ask if any of this matters. IN that, the courts have decided to shove this down our throats.

The reason we have 30+ states allowing homosexual marriage is because, in the vast majority of those states, it was imposed by courts.

Admittedly a few passed homosexual marriage through the legislative process, but most did not.

So I question what it matters, since the Supreme Court will rule someday that there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. What any of us think, or what any of us have done to work to define marriage legislatively, will be overturned.

[e-gadfly]

There is a significant difference in that the courts were activist and out in front of public opinion on interracial marriage, but hung back cautiously behind public opinion and avoided activism on gay marriage.

[Ohioan]

This writer shows the absurdity of the purely verbal argument.

No one, who stops to think just what is the function of marriage, throughout human history, should think of this as a rational issue. Marriage is, and always has been, about sanctifying the creation of the biological family, by the mating of the sexes in procreational activity. Marriage has always been consummated by a procreational act--whether it actually results in a pregnancy is not the point.

Same sex "marriage," is an oxymoron. You cannot have a marriage that can never be consummated, even in theory.

There are a lot of people, out there, who are going to feel very, very foolish, when a brave little boy (figuratively) points out that the Emperor is stark naked.

William Flax

[Westbrook]

> interracial marriage

Race is Ancestry.

Queer is Behavior.

They are NOT . THE . SAME !

[Servant of the Cross]

I smell ozone ...

[JSDude1]

No.

[CatherineofAragon]

"This may be the game-changer the GOP needs, especially when one considers the current state of public opinion and the trend lines: "

So you think it's high time for the GOP to approve queer "marriage?"

[Yosemitest]

Oh, HELL NO !
The conservative BASE would NEVER VOTE FORT THEM AGAIN !

This is what we get when we FAIL to OBEY God.
For it is written:

“ For whosoever shall commit ANY of these abominations,
even the SOULS that commit them
SHALL BE CUT OFF from among their people. ”

Those who support homosexuals are against our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ.
These anti Christ people only bring destruction on us ALL.
I have NO sympathy for homosexuals!

Homosexuality is a "Mark" of disobedience.

It was given by our Heavenly Father to test us
to see ... if we will OBEY our Heavenly Father,
and abide by His commandments, statues, and ordinances.

Someone once asked

"Why are they [homosexuals] all so angry?"

The answer is in the definition of "REPROBATE".

rep·ro·bate \ˈre-prə-ˌbāt\ a. [L. reprobatus, reprobo, to disallow; re and probo, to prove.]

1. Not enduring proof or trial; not of standard purity or fineness; disallowed; rejected.


Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them. Jer. 6.




2. Abandoned in sin; lost to virtue or grace.

They profess that they know God, but in works deny him, being abominable and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate. Titus 1.

3. Abandoned to error, or in apostasy. 2Tim. 3.

And the reason"why" is given in the Bible.

God has a cure for homosexuals.

But will we OBEY our Heavenly Father?

"Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect
that God is just,
that his justice cannot sleep forever."

[RIghtwardHo]

I dunno. Before the nomination I agree with you. But after the nomination I would be shocked if it wasn’t some “”that’s just not an important issue” candidate.

Sad but true.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Game changer? I agree. It will finally complete the divorce of the Republican Party from its social conservative base and allow the formation of the conservative party this county so desperately needs.

[Dilbert San Diego]

There is a significant difference in that the courts were activist and out in front of public opinion on interracial marriage, but hung back cautiously behind public opinion and avoided activism on gay marriage.

---

The courts avoided activism on gay marriage?? Really???

You really believe that???

If public opinion is really so much for gay marriage, why have so few states adopted gay marriage through their legislative processes??

On the other hand, why have so many states defined marriage as a man and a woman through the legislative process, which courts are now overturning???

[Servant of the Cross]

Double Team! Calling the VK's!

IBTZ

[RIghtwardHo]

The tide is shifting and has shifted ... and not in our direction.

[Junk Silver]

Of course the Republicans should have a pro-gay-marriage presidential candidate in 2016, assuming that they want a chance to get the votes of the dozen or so Federal circuit court judges who have decided that their power out-weighs that of the states and the wishes of the voting public at large.

The Republican party hasn’t shown much interest in what the public at large wants, so I guess we’ll be hearing all about the virtues of “marriage equality” from Jeb Bush or whatever other useless globalist drone they push on us.