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.

[Hetty_Fauxvert]

The idea of history not being linear, and the probable results of that, is really interesting. Also, you write well. I wish you would form these thoughts into a longer article and submit it for publication somewhere that would be seen by a more “mainstream” audience. I think it would shake up some people.

[Gunpowder green]

Gays are maybe two percent of the electorate, negligible at best. Holding firm on traditional morality will gain us far more than that.

The media is pushing this gay crap, and I am sick of it!

[Olog-hai]

Nor is statesmanship. It certainly was not the case that Churchill was the most popular man in Britain’s government prior to the start of WWII.

[nathanbedford]

What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

Clearly, Madison believed that neither government nor populace were peopled by angels. To the contrary both government and those governed are not angels. The problem can arise when those who govern conceive themselves angels and seek to control the baleful behavior of the governed, especially when those who govern forget that they themselves are no angels. Or, a problem can arise when those who govern believe they have the power of divine angels to change human nature.

One might observe that if all men were angels there would be no need to change human nature but since men are not angels is takes a power higher than man or man's government to change human nature and make angels of men.

Are our laws, what's left of them, against sodomy and sodomistic marriage designed to control behavior or to change human nature? Homosexuals tell us that that is the wrong question because it is natural for a homosexual, they say, to commit sodomy and no law can change that essential fact of their human nature. We have thousands of years of laws to do just that but we have failed wherever we have tried.

Here endeth the lesson of humility for the powers of government.

[Olog-hai]

We haven’t failed universally, though. If we did, then the USA would never have come to be in the first place.

[Hostage]

Good exposition, and sound analysis and perspective; my compliments.

Pols usually are not as bright as we hope they should be. But given the right plan of attack they will get behind it.

Who should make that plan of attack and what does it look like?

Your perspective is one of high awareness and substance with glistening aspects of solution material in hints of states rights. But how to plan an attack or counterattack around themes of states rights? And do it in a way that those who are not of such high awareness as you and others in the conservative movement can get behind it. How to get the lesser aware behind it?

There are several approaches:

1. Populist - Ronald Reagan was able to woo the lesser aware with force of personality. The downside of this approach is that it is not lasting.

2. Honey Pot - this approach offers something to the voter in return for their participation. This approach is used quite successfully by the Left. This would lead to the same result we see today and would not make the lesser aware any more aware than they are today.

3. Independence - What could be offered here for example would be a land program, vocational training program, increased grant subsidies for such training especially in concert with a land program. The idea would be to provide a pathway towards independence with resource support and importantly the instillation or gradual establishment of the values of conservative traditions. One might entertain the thought of calling such a program “A Life of Dignity” and would avoid the ‘40 acres and a mule’ outcome by presold contracts of products or services, all administered at a state level. There is evidence of the workability and success of such an approach as this.

4. Existing Small Business Pitch - small businesses care primarily about one thing only, more customers in their stores and facilities. Getting them onboard is best accomplished with economic arguments and commitments to lower taxes and less regulations. This is the tried and true approach of the GOP but it doesn’t always form the broader coalition needed to win elections unless the urbanite dependent class sits home on election night in a funk as to why liberals didn’t deliver. This goes in cycles. The cycle is best broken with approach 3 above. But even when the cycle hits just right, this approach does not always result in a more enlightened aware voter. Many existing small businesses can be practically minded for themselves but Utopian for others. For example, a shopkeeper can understand all the conservative business values but still remark they would wish everyone would have healthcare as long as they were not obliged to pay for it.

Now surely there will be those that will criticize any ‘plan’ or ‘approach’ but the facts are that America has grown a large dependent class that votes on the left side of the political spectrum. To have any chance at restoring conservatism and states rights, there has to be a plan of attack put forward to provide an alternative to government dependency. Kicking people off the dole won’t do it. They will merely vote themselves back into it.

A ‘fundamental transformation’ as Obama expressed should be countered with the more correct ‘fundamental market awareness’ where people of the dependent class become part of the market and are trained and supported to take their place in it.

[MSF BU]

This is the “Embrace the Sodomy” thought process that many are looking to impose on what used to be the normal Judeo Christian ethic. This is nothing new, it is as old as Sodom and presages the destruction of a nation.

[JudyinCanada]

Go with the morals. It’s quite refreshing to hear someone say that they’ll stand or fall by their beliefs, but they won’t change them. That’s a leader.

[Sans-Culotte]

Bump.

[fuzzylogic]

We need to direct the conversation toward the question: what does marriage mean? Cultures over time have had many different standards regarding marriage. What is our standard? Why? Each form of marriage has impacts on society. Some cultures allow polygamy and specifically *not* gay marriage, why? Marriage has to mean something or it means nothing.

We need to share some blame, it’s only because our standard of marriage has been watered down for decades which has brought forth the question of gay marriage. Casual sex ok? Easy divorce? etc.

If we are on the right side of morality then we should be able to point out the consequences of different forms of marriage. Having one man with many wives has consequences. Men having sex with men has consequences. We must have 2.1 children per couple for a society to maintain its population. We need to minimize the spread of disease while having enough children. We need to point out the CDC stats of gay men. When 2% of the population is having unprotected anal sex with the same 2% of the population then ANY bacteria or virus is going to spread like wildfire. Gay men can’t give blood, for good reason - we need to have somebody with the balls to discuss this seriously and do it in a manner that is factual and hard to argue with, obviously not out of hate.

Then state that for these reasons a society should have high standards for marriage, it is a survival issue. There is a the highest form of marriage and then everything else, the highest form being 1 man and 1 woman - and yes, without pre-marital sex, adultery and divorce. Having sex before marriage has consequences, look around at society and all the problems it causes. Having sex before you’re married brings consequences to your future spouse, call it retroactive adultery.

This pervasive attitude of “don’t judge”, often pointed out as a Christian value, is used to shut people up as a pretext for “anything goes, leave me alone, I don’t want to hear it”. This is not what Christ was saying. There’s a difference between “standing in judgement” (like stoning a woman to death for adultery) and making a “judgement” that a given behavior is wrong, because it doesn’t serve the best interests of society.

A civilization will fall when the fabric of it’s society is unwoven. Our fabric is woven with the essence of Judeo-Christian ethics, it is the basis for our success above all else. We are at war, a war for our souls. If we can’t find a way to articulate the “why” then we’ll lose.

[NKP_Vet]

“It leaves an increasing demographic block of secularized voters feeling they could be the next victim to someone else’s version of immorality”

Homosexuality goes against nature and goes against the laws of God. Anyone who engages in it has serious mental problems. Homosexuals and lesbians live far shorter lives that normal people. They are sick people and need God in their lives, they do not need to be paraded as perfectly normal adjusted people who just want to be left alone. Most homosexual men are sexual predators and want to have sex with every 14 year old boy they lay their eyes on. Most lesbians are in polygamous relationship and the more women in the bed with them the merrier. It’s all about sex, sex, sex. Love has nothing to do with it. No one is born homosexual. There is no such thing as a homosexual gene. Homosexuality is a choice. It is a choice that will not only shorter your life if you participate in it but you will also adversely affect everyone else that does not accept this mental disorder. For tne US government to force “homosexual” marriage on this county will be the end of this country. When morality goes south, everything else follows. It happens to all great societies and it will happen here. The only question is how long do we have left.

In the meantime the worthless closet homosexual Obama has just approved government funded “sex changes”. So our tax dollars will be paying for a mentally disturbed person to try and alter their sexual identity, while veterans are dying waiting for operations. And no one, and I mean no one, holds this worthless POS in the White House acceptable for anything. He says jump and the GOP says how high.

[highball]

Every state that’s voted on “gay marriage” has voted against it.

Yeah, that used to be out strongest argument against. But it's not true anymore.

We have lost the last four elections on this issue. And with the way polls are trending, gay marriage bans would fail today in many states where they passed before.

Plus look at the states where it was passed by legislatures. There were no mass protests, no turning out of those legislators in significant numbers.

We can no longer use the argument "Americans don't like or want gay marriage" because clearly, unfortunately, by any rational measure they do. We have to admit that before we can ever hope to change it.

[NKP_Vet]

Bill Gates poured millions and millions of dollars into the Washington State vote on homosexual “marriage”. The airwaves were flooded every five minutes with ads for it. In addition to uber liberal Gates money came pouring into the state from the land of fruits and nuts California. The ballot measure was also written in such a way that made it almost impossible for someone with normal intelligence to understand how what they were voting for. Washington State already had civil unions for these nutcases, and they carry all the civil protections and “bennies” from the government that marriage does. But of course that was not enough for the them. In the end Bill Gates got his wish when the ballot measure for homosexual “marriage” passed in Washington State. In was so confusing on the ballot that the next day thousands of people were asking “did I vote for that, I thought I voted the other way”!!

[NKP_Vet]

“But I am not so sympathetic as to go to the wall to protect the institution of marriage from a threat which I see to be attenuated and probably inevitable”

Why is it inevitable when no country in recorded history has allowed sodomite “marriage”. There have countries that have tolerated sodomites, but none that have allowed marriage for them. Not the first one. All in the world it is is abhorrent sexual behavior that destroys anyone that participates in it.

[Viennacon]

I’m not an economist or statistician, so I cannot accurately guage what would be needed to sever this toxic relationship between the federal government to the citizen through retirement and benefit programs (particularly the ones that are set to go bankrupt in a matter of decades).

I want to hear a candidate who is honest about these problems, who knows they will get hammered by the media and the Democrats for it, but will present the hard truth people need to hear.

1) These programs, however they have benefit you, were created with malevolent purposes in mind.

2) The government broke its promise, and did not lock-box these funds. They stole your money in a way that would be criminal in the private sector.

3) They intend to pay for these programs as far as they can by burying the nation in debt.

4) These programs will go bankrupt. Anyone under the age of 50 is paying money against their will into something they will gain no benefit from in the future.

I really think point #4 is a way of getting through to people. No candidate in either 2012 or 2008 made this point forcefully enough. The majority of American citizens will never see a dime of their payments to the government.

We need a bold vision that we move to totally phase these programs out before 2050, and a Republican president will set up the roadmap and begin the process. But make clear those who paid into the system will be reimbursed while payments from younger citizens are ended . How to pay for this? By any means necessary. I’d begin by ending all military presence in Europe, selling all assets thereof. Closing down all the usual departments mentioned (EPA, DOE, NOAA, GSA, IRS, etc) and selling off all assets.Ending foreign aid to 99% of current receiving nations. End funding of the UN and relate operations.
This would be done in conjunction with the states, to make sure each is ready to take on responsibilities they once held. It will be much easier dealing with the problems in say, Kansas, than it will in California due to the smaller population.

I’m looking for a candidate who will take the approach of being ready to make the tough decisions to shrink the government and prevent insolvency. While I disagreed with Ron Paul on many issues, he was the only candidate except for perhaps Herman Cain who seemed serious about how deep in trouble America was, and that bold action was needed.

With regard to the small business approach, the problem here is that the candidates all tout small business, but people hear this as big business because they are usually in bed with the Chamber of Crony Capitalism. It would help to have a candidate tout the virtues of local and state industries while correctly scolding the large corporations who have become arms of the state with lobbyists, special interests, etc. There can be little defense of the bailouts like there was in 2012. Detroit is gone. A candidate must be ready to criticize both the government and big business abuse of government privilege.

[Altura Ct.]

Gay marriage will destroy the Republican Party

[Responsibility2nd]

Hell, let ‘em marry. Who gives a crap?

_________________________________________

May I remind you this is a conservative website. Supporting queer marriages is not tolerated here.

[Hostage]

It’s not about marriage. It’s about destroying the Church.

And if you disagree with that or can’t see it then how do you explain all the lawsuits against Christian businesses that refuse to cater to homosexual marriages based on their religious beliefs.

It’s already happening that saying anything negative against homosexuals is classified as hate speech.

Once homosexuals destroy traditional moral standards and transform immoral standards to the new standards, they will judge your every thought and your every deed according to their doctrine. Are you prepared for that? Do you see now why this is much more than homosexual ‘marriage’?

[Hostage]

Excellent analogy.

[Iced Tea Party]

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

That enables candidates for federal office to side-step the issue. What do candidates for state office do? Say it's a federal issue?