The Future of the Republican Party

Remove all ads!

Many Christian denominations hold this mindset -- including some other Protestant groups, some Catholics, and IIRC some of the more zealous Orthodox churches. That's nothing new to me. What irks me about the Evangelicals in particular is that many of them do not consider Catholics, Orthodox, or other Evangelicals to be Christians -- and then those other groups I mentioned swallow all the crap that Evangelicals shovel about Mormons not being Christian without once stopping and saying "wait a minute, this guy doesn't even think I'M a Christian!"

For example, the whole plural marriage thing. The Mormon faith has not practiced polygamy for over 100 years. Yet people were smearing Romney and saying that if he were elected he would try to bring back plural marriage. That's just as ignorant and unfounded as the nonsense about Obama being a Muslim Manchurian.

I have said before that the misinformation machine is too powerful for Romney to beat. For a while I held hope that I had been wrong, but the more I think about it the more I realize I was right. Romney can't do this. All I am hoping is that SOMEONE can find a way to get the Republican nomination by reaching out to the middle ground.

 

Indeed. Blacks are, for some reason, the most homophobic ethnic group in America by far. While not a total surprise, it is remarkable to me the degree to which they made the difference in prop 8. The one ethnic group who arguably understands unfair discrimination better than anyone was a driving force behind one of the most blatant acts of discrimination I think I've ever seen in our legislative system. Sad.

 

Was that not placed on the ballot in response to the Gays going before the Supreme court to overturn lawfully passed legislation? Or did this come after the Supreme court attacked the traditional religious morality. It was the Gay community that made Religion in issue in this case. And until we get a politician with a brain that can resolve certain issues without attacking the religious foundations of the nation, religion and politics will continue to intermingle. The key to getting the religious people out of politics? Make them happy and they'll shut up. It's the fact that people want to provoke the sleeping giant that causes the problems...

While the Evangelicals might favour their own, I'm not prepared to concede the point. The Mormons have received more support from the Evangelicals after the debacle in California after Prop 8 passed.

Because mate selection is a choice. Skin colour is not. But Proposition 8 was not about equal rights, but about re-writing the morality of the nation. If you worked from the premise of the Domestic Partnership laws in California, EVERY right that Gay couples could want can be granted equal to those of a straight couple if that is not already the case. To actually attack marriage itself is an attack on religious faith in general. The sooner the gay activists realize this, the sooner they'll get equal rights for gay couples. If they insist on picking a fight, then they will lose.

Why don't you just use the "N" word? It's just as offensive.

When they stand up in defense of their religious beliefs it's biggotry but if they lose it's justice? Proposition 8 was a line in the sand. It affirmed that Gay Marriage is the wrong answer to the wrong question. If the gay community feels their rights are unequal, then they need to ask different questions to find the answers that will balance those rights. Clearly redefining marriage is the wrong answer. Now can we please get back to the topic at hand before this degenerates into another round of people calling me a biggot for believing in something that's not politically correct?

 

Why don't you just say dirty faggot, Gnarff? It's easily as offensive as your continued insistence that being gay is a choice, and would do us all the service of summing up most of your arguments.

Since you missed the point, as usual, I'll explain. I didn't say that to be a racist - I'm far from one (so much so that I'm marrying someone of a different race). I said it because it is simply an unfortunate fact. There are far higher incidence of open hostility toward homosexuals in the American black community than among any other ethnic group, period. More than whites, more than hispanics, more than Asians, anybody. Study after study confirms this. I find it perplexing, and unfortunate, hence, "for some reason." So kindly descend your poorly-informed soapbox.

I'm not going to address the rest of your hyperbole and tonedeaf nonsense, we've all been to that rodeo with you before on this subject. So yes, let's do get back on topic.

 

Because it's not about hatred. It's about defending what I (and apparently over 50% of people in California, Florida, Arizona and 27 other states) consider sacred/important. There are some activists that are actually trying to provoke a fight in hopes that some of the leaders of the opposition will stoop to such language and worse in a moment of anger.

Make no mistake, if this was just about gay rights, then the matter would be resolved with much less fanfare and media notice. No, it's about one side wanting a fight to slap the other side into submission. And it has backfired in 30 states so far...

That's not how it sounds.

Not something that would otherwise be known.

The words "studies have shown that..." would have reflected that with less confusion. It reflects that this is scientific observation and not hyperbole and tonedeaf nonsense.

These alleys are big enough for everyone to stand on their own poorly informed soapbox. ;p

 

Of course it's about hatred. The people who want gay marriage upheld are defending something they consider sacred and important, too. You keep whining that they're attacking you and assaulting religion and tearing down the foundations of society or any number of your greatest hits. Far more straight people than gay people are in favor of gay marriage, so it's far more than just gays trying to pull a fast one one on poor, defenseless Christians. The hostility you show towards gays and their intentions and the language you use more than invalidates that claim.

To you. Hilarious, coming from the guy who doesn't understand why people think of him as a bigot.

True, but anyone who's read more than a dozen of my posts would know how non-racist I am. That goes double for you.

The words "how did you come by that, DR?" or just using a little common sense would have been better than calling me a racist.

 

I call shenanigans on that one, DR. Many people who oppose the gay agenda do so because they believe the behaviour is immoral and wrong. Painting their heartfelt belief as "hatred" is about as useful as those who claim America's enemies "hate freedom" -- it's a good sound bite but hardly fair discourse. I have a gay brother who I love and even a few gay friends, but I totally disagree with their behaviour and the argument that genetics dictate that behaviour.

 

Gotta side with LKD on this one.

There’s a world of difference between “hatred” (at least in the context I think DR is using it) and “disapproval”.

People object to things all the time. Does that mean that those who object to what you support should be labeled as hate-mongers? I am sure DR doesn't think so.

I haven’t seen anything in Gnarff’s posts that suggest hate. Intolerance? - yes. Pig-headedness? - absolutely. Mormon? - well, I wouldn't go that far ( ). But the label “hater” suggests something else altogether. Like KKK hatred. I'm reminded of a recent post where the term "terrorist" was used, and that caused a whole flurry of activity.

There are certain labels that one must be careful about using.

 

I think what people have to be careful of is reading too much into this defeat. Yes, the Reps need a new strategy, but a complete party shift like what some are fearing here (an ultra right-wing party) is unlikely. How many years have the Dems taken resounding defeats? Did they drastically reform their party after every one? More to the point, I don't see either abortion or gay marriage as problem issues for the Reps specifically because there is a very large portion of the population, arguably even a majority, that agrees with each one. These issues are evenly split, which means that, for the voters that it matters to, you'll get about half whichever way you go. Even if you aim for the middle, you won't get everyone, just the middle 'half' with the extremists on either end still angry with you. By far the biggest thing Obama did right was raise money, which I expect any new Rep candidate to learn a few things from, though not adopt exactly. The next thing he did was distribute his resources well. He won by a landslide in the electoral college, but it was much closer in the popular vote, which means he got just enough support in a lot of states to secure their electorate and didn't spend any more than that. Most of the swing states that went to him did so by marjins of just a few percentage points. The last thing he did well was to stay on message, something Reps have generally done well in the past, and only recently dropped. He even issued plenty of attack adds, it's just that most of them were local, so any particular group only saw a few of them and didn't get too bad a feeling of Obama. Oh, and let's not forget the last thing he did well: lie. Lying has played an important roll in politics for a long time, and Obama did it masterfully. Even when it got caught he managed to deflect it (thanks largely to the media). McCain, on the other hand, just didn't lie; well, not directly. He stayed away from the big standard lies of politics and it cost him.

As for policies and philosophies, I see the Reps going more for the issues and less on the attack-dog route, but I think that's the most drastic change I'd expect.

 

As for policies and philosophies, I see the Reps going more for the issues and less on the attack-dog route, but I think that's the most drastic change I'd expect.

If they do this, they'll see more success in the long run (I hope!) The attack dog route of constant opponent bashing is not really helpful to anyone.

 

Right! And you are making that comment to a guy who actually VOTED for the black guy....But don't let anything like the "facts" confuse you.

That's right. What's the presidency, 58 Senate seats (maybe more) and 256 seats in Congress to a political party? Let's not read "too much" into the historic election results, but rather acknowledge that the Republicans still have parking stickers somewhere on Capitol Hill.

12 years: 1994-2006, and they still managed to hold the presidency from 1992-2000. Any other questions you need answered?

 

Actually, they went to the Supreme Court to clarify existing legislation*. The courts didn't change the law, but merely found that the California Constitution already granted them that right. That said, can you please stop using terms like "the gays"? Aside from being ridiculously inaccurate, it's also annoying. Most people who are pro-gay rights - and even most gay-rights activists - aren't gay. Their lawyers usually aren't gay, either.

* To greatly over-simplify the decision, they found that since the constitution doesn't define marriage as being between one man and one woman while at the same time explicitly banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, that it would be unconstitutional to disallow gay marriage.

 

Sorry, I got a link to back it up. This statement from the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints states that this is not about hatred. Specific points:

- The focus is specifically on same sex marriage and it's consequences.

- The Church holds NO objection to legislatively granted rights (like Domestic Partnership laws) as long as they don't infringe upon the definition of Marriage or the integrity of the family.

- The Constitutional rights of religious organizations must be protected.

- The Church has one undeviating standard of morality--Sex is only proper between one man and one woman legally and lawfully married. The church also explicitly defines Marriage as between a Man and a Woman.

- The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people.

- they should approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility.

It continues with a Theological discourse on why we feel the way we do on the issue.

But they don't speak of undesirable consequences for society as a whole if they fail. Further, for them to get equal rights, the mechanism is already in place in California (Domestic Partnership laws), they DON'T need to try to change the definition of an institution fundamental to society as a whole.

By seeking to change the definition of Marriage, they are directly trying to override an important passage in my religious doctrine. They will force that definition on the children of members of the church in the area. That IS an attack on Religion.

Hostility? When have I ever adovcated violence against homosexuals? I don't give a **** what they do in the privacy of their homes or anywhere else they can expect privacy. I hold that stance with heterosexuals as well. When it comes to the details of their sex lives, I DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT!

Fornication and adultery are greivous sins, regardless of the genders involved, and I can't support or condone these sins. Marriage, as defined by most Christian faiths (and 30 of 50 states in the US) is between a man and a woman. It follows that I CANNOT support their cause. This is not hatred.

If anything the language I use indicates frustration at the feeling of being disregarded when I ask people to find a solution that gives equal rights to an oppressed group without displacing the rights of a group that I am a member of.

Not really, I've written off the people that think I'm a bigot as being bigots themselves. Their accusations of hatred on my part betray a hatred within themselves.

The comment itself seemed Racist. That's what I called you on. For a comment like that, a little bit of clarification goes a long way. My problem is that most of my statements that get the bigot label take a lot of clarification...

Again, there is a world of difference between tolerance and agreement. By tolerance, we no longer criminalize their behaviour. Nowhere does that say we agree with the behaviour. For example, look at smoking tobacco. Society has not criminalized tobacco, only regulated it. It has, for health reasons, restricted where you can and can't smoke, and set a minimum age for the legal purchase of the product. But the Government does not endorse the use of tobacco. On the contrary, they mandate warning labels on tobacco products, sponsor programs to help people quit smoking and advertise that people shouldn't smoke. Big difference here.

Where that applies to homosexuality, society has decided that they will tolerate unmaried persons having sex. They no longer restrict this by gender, but still place restrictions on age, consent and where you can have sex. It does not mean that they endorse any form of sex.

No, about his offensively worded comment. He passed it off as a general statement without stating where he got it from. Without the observational context, it sounds like an unsupported generalization.

What's to clarify? Marriage is defined under the existing legislation as being between a Man and a woman. They didn't like that so they went to the Supreme court. Now the People of California have spoken and overruled the Supreme court.

If Marriage was NOT constitutionally defined, then the constitution did NOT grant them that right.

What would you rather I use? Remember that it's not about hatred here. On second thought, no. I will not be bullied with political correctness. My position is already politically incorrect.

And your point is?

The Constitution did not, until recently, directly address marriage at all. In fact, it could be argued that, under the first ammendment, the government has no business in marriage at all because of the religious origin of marriage.

But since Marriage itself was not constitutionally defined, but laws do grant rights to unmarried couples. Therefore it is unconstitutional to deny those rights to homosexuals. I'm sure that this can be accomodated without redefining marriage.

Actually, there is a clause that allows legislature to enact laws that would otherwise not be constitutional in order to ensure social order and to protect society. This was done in the case of the previous law. Further, marriage was defined for the nation as a whole, by laws that stated that Marriage was between a man and a woman, and when challenged in 1878, the Supreme Court upheld that ruling, therefore the State Supreme court had no right to strike down the existing legislation. The people spoke to correct that mistake.

It's real simple. You want the religious community to be quiet politically? Find ways to accommodate divergent views in a way that doesn't threaten the first ammendment right to freedom of religion.

 

Gnarff,

Yes? Is that so? Why?

Is there something in Mormon scripture that says that marriage is whatever the law defines it is? I strongly doubt it. We had that point before Gnarff, and I still don't understand your reasoning. I am Catholic. Maybe I am out of touch with Catholic doctrine here (Chev, care to comment?), but I do not see that 'gay marriage' is a threat to my religion. We have the religious ceremony and the sacrament - everything else is just a civil law contract. So 'gay marriage' cannot even logically be a threat to religion, my religion anyway.

I see this: Homosexuality is a reality. Homosexual couples do live together as couples. There are legal problems originating from these forms of cohabitation. Think of homosexual couples who are parents of children living with them. It means you want to address parenting rights. Think of property issues. Or what if in such a partnership one of the partners goes to hospital. Who will answer the hard questions about life support for instance? The parents or the partner of twenty years? These are very practical problems. This reality means that there is a need to address the legal problems resulting from this reality and to put these relationships into a legal framework.

To refuse to regulate this is imprudent and it will inevitably impose on the taxpayer a financial burden and make life harder and more difficult for homosexual couples. That is so, because in the absence of a clear legal framework this is guaranteed to carry things to court, with the related costs, that such regulation would address and keep out.

In my view the entire debate about 'gay marriage' is the result of mischievous wording. It cannot be stressed enough that language does matter. In fact, it matters a lot. A legal framework for gay couples could be called 'Partnership', 'Civil Union' or whatever - anything other than marriage - and it could be dealt with rationally.

That did not happen. I do not see it as an accident that conservative US politicians chose, and I put a strong emphasis on chose, to call it 'gay marriage' - which is the very point that gets the religious conservatives riled up. And I think getting conservatives riled up is the very point of that choice - the wording was chosen intentionally, to be able to exploit 'gay marriage' as a wedge issue, to be able to exploit (sub)conscious anxieties and/or resentment about homosexuals, for political advantage. The wording 'gay marriage' intentionally conflates the religious aspects of marriage with the secular contract that is marriage under the law. That also offers a compelling explanation for Gnarff's largely circular elaborations (no offence).
Marriage is between a man and a woman? Ah yes, semantics. Extremely interesting. Immensely productive. Because marriage is between a man and a woman it follows that ... a union between two men or two woman is ... impossible? ... not a marriage? ... sinful? ... worse, a violation of the definition in Merriam-Webster? One can skip that nonsense when one is discussing 'civil unions' and save everybody a lot of time.

Insofar, I don't so much see hate in the 'gay marriage' debate but a cynical game of divisive politics. The talk about the 'gay marriage' stampede threatening civilisation as we know it, is aimed and tailored toward audiences like Gnarff - Christian fundamentalists and religious conservatives. Gnarff is just among the part of the audience among which this resonates. That is a deliberate political strategy.

A lesson for liberals to draw from this would be to watch their language - to consciously refuse to adopt and use the phrase 'gay marriage' as it puts them at a disadvantage in a discussion before they even are able to bring any arguments and address the core issue here - which is not religion, but finding a pragmatic solution to real life problems.

 

You know what, I just got about 4 paragraphs into a response to Rags' excellent post, and I realized we have gone WAY off the beam here. Back to the Republicans! As they relate to the who homosexual issue, I will say this: The results of Prop 8 show that many people in America oppose 'gay marriage'. This tells me that on social issues the Republicans still have some traction with society. Not as much at this very moment, of course, but to write them off because they lost one election, no matter how badly, would be foolish. I'm not sure about the final presidential results in terms of popular vote (as opposed to the Electoral college, which seems to me to skew things, but that's another thread) but I'm pretty sure that over 40% of the population voted Republican. (all you nit-pickers out there can dig up the exact results if you so desire) That's a big chunk of the country that supports the Republican mindset.

If the Republicans can appeal to that base and then expand out and appeal to some others, they'll be back in the game, maybe even earlier than some of you think (though I personally see an 8 year Obama stint. I doubts about the House of Reps or the Senate.)

 

The 12th Article of Faith states that the Church will support the Government, holding the Government accountable to God for their actions (meaning if you guys are truthful in your accusations about Iraq, then W will likely be reunited with Hussein and Bin Laden in the afterlife). Section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenents lays out our beliefs in regards to the relationship between church and state. While we don't want the laws written by any religion--including our own, we are encouraged to lobby our politicians to govern wisely. The Proclamation on the Family, released as doctrine in 1995, specifically defines Marriage as between a Man and a Woman and again exhorts all governing bodies to support this institution.

In 1891, the First Presidency adopted Official Declaration 1, where the church announced that they would no longer tolerate the further practice of polygamy in compliance to Federal law. I fear a new wave of persecution of any religious faith that refuses to allow for same sex marriages if they are pushed into law.

For a faith to thrive, it relies on those values being taught to the next generation. If the laws regarding marriage are changed, then what will be forced down the throats of the next generation?

The Stte of California already has a Domestic Partnership law in place that handles unmarried couples that live together regardless of gender. Through this law, all the 1000 plus rights that same sex couples could want could be dealt with without redefining marriage. This law went into place without any kicking and screaming by Christians.

Marriage is that line in the sand that Chirstians and Conservatives don't want to see crossed. There is still a large area that'a not defined where homosexuals can get the rights they want without crossing that line.

The Bible uses the word Abomination. Interestingly the Book of Mormon uses that word for fornication and adultery as well. Since Homosexual unions are not sanctioned by the Chruch, they will always fall under the heading of fornication or adultery. Because Heterosexual marriage is part of God's eternal plan, any union between those of the same gender is invalid in this world and the next.

This is not hatred, but simple understanding of the greatest joy available. We believe that there can be no greater eternal reward than to be eternally joined with your spouse and offspring, ancestors and decendants in the presence of God for all eternity. Since homosexuality is not sanctioned, They are not taking an eternal companion, and not producing offspring, thus denying themselves decendants.

I disagree. The threat is real. This is a threat to the moral fabric of the nation. If the State is allowed or compelled to override religious doctrine, this weakens the influence of Religion for the next generation, and thus makes it harder for people to teach their children moral behaviour.

Exactly the point I've been trying to work out for a couple months now. Thank you. I believe it's somewhere in the Art of War where it's written that strategy should match the objective. If the objective is gay rights, then it's best to avoid pushing that line in the sand. By insisting on crossing that line, they alienate those that should be sympathetic to their cause.

I heard that the number may have been as high as 46% of the popular vote being for Mac/Palin. That's a 5% drop from 2004. That can be attributed tothe difference between Barrack Obama and John Kerry. The Republicans have two options: One is to decide on a candidate that can compete with Obama (I think Mitt Romney could be the man) in 2012, or two, throw a really undesirable candidate (Sarah Palin, Jeb Bush)to the wolves.

Again, I think Obama got to the moderates better than Mac did, and in 2012, the spectre of W will not be a factor...

 

To me, this sums up the entire issue. Getting the rights of heterosexuals is not the issue. The issue is the getting to use a word that heterosexuals consider sacred and that is just juvenile and vindictive.

 

100% agreed.

Assuming, of course, that you're directing the "juvenile and vindictive" comment at heterosexuals because of their not wanting to share.

 

I think we should be a bit more specific. When you say "Supreme Court" it makes it sound like the US Supreme Court, which it isn't. It's the Supreme Court of California that ruled that homosexuals already had those rights under the Constitution. As far as I am aware, the US Supreme Court has not taken any cases regarding homosexual unions. (Of course, the fact that they haven't speaks volumes as well. By not taking any cases they are making it pretty clear that marriage is something for the states to decide. I find that odd, as it opens up a real can of worms because sometimes people move, and sometimes they move to a different state...)