They’ll happily accept the role of tidy bowl man but at least they get to be captain.
there's nothing like; "going down with one's
Posted on 02/06/2013 7:19:48 AM PST by fractionated
Young Republicans in Iowa are still split on the institution of marriage being extended to gay people. But there is a growing consensus among college-aged GOPers that in order to win elections, the party's focus should be elsewhere.
Gay and lesbian campus groups and College Republicans haven't exactly been friendly to one another over the years, in Iowa or the rest of the country.
But there are signs that with this coming generation the trend could be changing, and for the Republican Party that could be critical.
"As a young Republican, I see where the party’s coming from with the idea of traditional marriage, but I cannot support that aspect of the platform," said Victoria Hurst, president of the University of Northern Iowa College Republicans.
She said she supports many Republican ideals, but not the party's stance on gay marriage.
"America has bigger problems than who can and cannot marry; it is time to move beyond this and focus on bigger problems, like the federal deficit and unemployment rates," she said....
A Gallup Poll in November of young voters aged 18-29 found that 73 percent support same-sex marriage. Almost a third of Republicans surveyed support gay marriage.
The Republican Party has been losing the battle for young voters in a convincing way the last three elections....
Libertarian-leaning Republicans and Independents who might otherwise vote Republican for fiscal reasons have considered the opposite ticket, or voted third party, Ginty said, as they feel that the government should not be in the business of restricting freedoms for anyone....
(Excerpt) Read more at ankeny.patch.com ...
The mods did let us play with it for a few days after it popped up on the radar.
We don’t need no steenkin’ perverts! :)
Yes, some of them are quite good when they get crispy and crunchy during the ZOT. You’re right, it was pretty good, really, especially after all the anticipation. [smiles]
And you’re quite welcome for the ping!
the author...Ankeny (IA) Patch ^ | February 4, 2013 | Stephen Schmidt
Says it all. Karl Rove lackey, as well. JUST SHUT UP, Already, Karl and Steve, etc.
A Lutheran church school in California.
We certainly do not. [smiles]
Ursula is still my favorite, especially with your cogent commentary!
LOL! I like that kitteh. Concerns, indeed, and plenty of them. He’s been on borrowed time for a while now. Being pro-gay marriage is Free Republic’s permanent “OFF” button for the trolls’ accounts.
They might start out laughing, but they may very well start vomiting once they hear about the sickening, disgusting, filthy, anally-fixated practices their favorite little hairstylists and decorators engage in....and the diseases and disorders that result.
Younger voters don't know what perversion really means because no one has the nerve anymore to educate them. All they've grown up hearing is "gay" and "civil rights" and "marriage equality". It's time to drop the "gay" stuff and be frank about the mentally sick nature of homosexuality.
“Why has the left chosen this hill to fight on?”
Because the right has chosen it. Or more succinctly, chosen to _lose_ it.
I am against homosexual marriage, and my attitudes will not change on the subject. It should not be permitted, and if I had my way, it would not be.
But the core of conservatism (in my view) is the ability to see things as they are, and having seen reality, to understand it and proceed in reasoned and logical ways.
For conservatives, the writing is on the wall insofar as homosexual marriage is concerned. We failed to engage the issue totally, when it was still within our power to seize control of the public mood and do something about it. Ten years ago or so (just after the court decision in Massachusetts that legalized gay marriage), it might have been possible to enact a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman (I believe I was the first person in this forum to propose such an idea). Republicans at the time, as they are wont to do, ran away from that possibility when they had the advantage, and “compromised” on The Defense of Marriage Act (which has reached the point where it is all-but unenforceable and in time may be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court).
Now such a Constitutional amendment is politically impossible, and the leftist schools and media have had more than a decade to “condition” the sheeple and more importantly, the young.
The left is going to win on this one. All one needs to do is look at the opinions of the young — even a third of young self-declared Republicans — to surmise this reality.
I don’t like it any more than you do.
But that’s the way I see it.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but am not quite sure what route forward you are endorsing. Are you suggesting we individual conservatives accept defeat, accept gay marriage and say no more about it?
I’m surprised it took this long. You and I had this guy pegged yesterday.
“I don’t necessarily disagree, but am not quite sure what route forward you are endorsing. Are you suggesting we individual conservatives accept defeat, accept gay marriage and say no more about it?”
Well, at this point it seems to me that a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage is no longer possible. It certainly doesn’t have the votes to pass both houses of today’s Congress, and I don’t foresee any time soon when we will again have the necessary majorities in Congress, if ever again. So that isn’t going to happen.
Nor does it do much good for conservatives to waste their energy trying to overturn homo-marriage in states where it already exists. Simply not within the realm of possibility. It was only last October, when the issue of homo-marriage loomed on the ballot of 4 states, that there were still folks in this forum repeating the mantra that “gay marriage loses every time it’s been placed on the ballot.” Well, guess what? Homo-marriage won in all four states where it was a ballot issue. Simply stated, the blue states are lost to us on this.
What do I see as worth doing? That would be “holding the line” in the red states where resistance is still possible. In each of these states, I think conservatives should push for legislation or ballot measures seeking to incorporate the “definition of marriage” within each state’s constitution. Doing so will protect the issue from court attacks at the state level.
Of course, even that won’t protect traditional marriage from a decree by the U.S. Supreme Court that invalidates the Defense of Marriage Act, along with any state-based attempts to protect marriage. It’s just too early to tell from what angle the left’s “final attack” is going to come.
If there is a fight left, it must be waged on the territory that we still hold.
Ultimately, the marriage issue may become one of the driving wedges (along with gun control and the Second Amendment) that fracture the Union to the point from which it can no longer continue. We’ll just have to wait and see.
I guess what p*sses me off the most about this issue is its another lost battle we've not even tried to fight.
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.