Posted on 06/28/2015 10:45:01 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
Sen. Lindsey Graham told Meet the Press host Chuck Todd that the Republican party needs to finally hang it up when it comes to keeping a proposal for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in their party platform, but that he made it clear they're not going to let it go as a wedge issue any time soon.
As long as they can keep the religious right whipped into a frenzy over whether their "liberties" are being violated by not being free to discriminate against a group of people they don't like, they're going to keep going after those votes.
Here's how Graham responded when asked about Ted Cruz hyperventilating over the weekend, saying he wants to add same-sex marriage bans, Supreme Court elections to Constitution.
GRAHAM: I don't believe there is any chance for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman to get two thirds votes in the House and the Senate and be ratified by three fourths of the states.
TODD: Get it out of the platform?
GRAHAM: In my view, you can put it in the platform, but it will in my view hurt us in 2016 because it's a process that's not going to bear fruit. What I want to do is protect the religious liberties of those who believe that opposing same-sex marriage is part of their faith, so no, I would not engage in the Constitutional amendment process as a party going into 2016. Accept the court's ruling. Fight for the religious liberty of every American.
Well that’s the thing. With all the libs posting lately, who knows? Anything to cloud the issue. Sure I think it’s crap too but what is truth with a lib running the show. Everything is suspect. The guy could be telling the truth and we wouldn’t believe it because it serves the agenda to keep people fighting about it. Or he could likely be lying and it serves just as well.
He just wants money to retire.
Yes. And I can assure you that at least some of them are not gay. <^..^>
Exactly. We have libs pushing their a pro-amnesty candidate and defending it as it if were a good thing. One even said it was "fair". How is it "fair" to the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs to the ILLEGAL hordes? All candidates have their downsides, we know that. But when one touts amnesty as if it is a good thing, that is a major negative, and damned good reason to reject said candidate.
Thae want Amnesty. They want RINOs. They want SoCons to go to hell. They want everything DU wants.
When Rick Perry wanted no fence and did his theater act, they flocked to him. Trumps act? Same people. Same flocking.
Christe. Coulter. Romney. Rubio. Pick a RINO with a liberal position Pick a rino PUSHING a liberal position. There they are defending them. There they are screaming about not questioning their conseratism while making every excuse under creation why conservatives must moderate so that the leftist RINO can win, sell books, keep their radio show going. Whatever.
Anything but backing a conservative.
“Oh we supportex X in the primary!”
Really? But when the chips were down they backed a liberal. Thats like saying “I didn’t support the gang rape when they planned it but I had to when it happened.”
And most of them supported a RINO in the primary and hope we didn’t remember.
There is but one definition of conservative, and it will never apply to Lindsey Graham, JEB Bush, Rick Perry, Chris Christie or Donald Trump.
There is no need to amend the Constitution.
Congress can, and should, bar any appeals to the Supreme Court regarding State laws regarding marriage. Congress can do this by simple majority vote, Presidential signature not required, Presidential veto not permitted.
Too bad the voters of South Carolina voted this guy back in. Keeping Graham out and all of his Democrat in an R jersey buddies is the only thing that will save the GOP.
In the last week I have had 3 or 4 people use Reagan to make lib arguments. On FR. That was just with me. They invoked him on immigration, on Romney and IIRC, on free trade.
Someone needs to explain to me what the point is in calling ourselves conservatives when at least half of conservatism hates the icon of the cause. If they don’t hate him, then I don’t know what using him to promote liberalism could be called.
Congress can and will not because their leadership said it’s settled science.
Does anybody really care what the GOP does anymore? When push came to shove the GOP did nothing to defend its base. It will now be cut loose to drift away into oblivion.
Reagan is dead. I doubt that any conservatives here "hate him", but it probably is time for a leader or two that still has a pulse.
Conservatives do not bow to icons, they follow ideas that never die.
Liberals hate President Reagan. Sullying his name by trying to compare a circus sideshow charlatan like Donald Trump to him is something a conservative just would not do, so they out themselves when they do it.
Sure. All the liberals here that demand that we vote for whatever the GOP puts up in 16. And that’s a lot of ‘conservatives’ (spit)
The same ones that demanded we send mitch and jonbon back to hold the house and take the senate even though we all knew we had enough to do both if they lost.
The same ones crying about Obamacare that sent the people back that funded it 3 times.
The same ones crying about homofication that wanted the father of Gay marriage in America elected president at a time when the freaking liberal opposed it.
“As long as they can keep the religious right whipped into a frenzy over whether their “liberties” are being violated by not being free to discriminate against a group of people they don’t like, they’re going to keep going after those votes. “
What a complete jackass.
You’re right. —Conservaties— don’t hate him.
And yet they multiply unobstructed.
Yup.
Flame me. I agree at this point with Lindsay. Not on much else, though.
It would be absolutely meaningless to have it on a platform and the law will never be changed back. He is right: we need to now FORCE the law to apply such freedoms forever to religions. And I fear greatly, because it means respecting Sharia as well as Christian and Jewish practices. WE HAVE MORE TO FEAR right now than gay marriage. Think forest, people. Not just one tree.
Our fight needs to be so much bigger.
Also, those who just insult the effeminate Lindsay: he isn’t throwing it in your face and though his orientation may be homosexual, he may well be completely abstinent. How can you have a problem with that? The extraordinarily gaydar-breaking Tim Gunn from that fashion designing show is completely celibate. If you are anti-gay, isn’t that what you want from gay people?
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.