Comments on: McCain campaign manager says GOP should back gay marriage

By: Phydeau

Phydeau — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:04:42 +0000

Looks like the wingnuts have decided this isn’t a battle worth fighting. Uncharacteristically smart of them.

Run away, wingnuts!

By: Phydeau

Phydeau — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:20:47 +0000

In a speech Friday to Log Cabin Republicans, a conservative gay rights group, Steve Schmidt said allowing same-sex marriage is in line with the conservative credo of keeping government out of people’s private lives.

That may be a conservative credo, but it certainly isn’t a credo of today’s Republican party. They love torture, searches without warrants, holding people indefinitely without charging them with a crime, and deciding what ceremonies other people get to participate in.

Very much a nanny state… well, not nanny, more like thuggish big brother.

By: Phydeau

Phydeau — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:34:39 +0000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater#Political_views

After his retirement in 1987, Goldwater described the conservative Arizona Governor Evan Mecham as “hardheaded” and called on him to resign, and two years later stated that the Republican party had been taken over by a “bunch of kooks”. In a 1994 interview with the Washington Post the retired senator said,
“When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.”

And there’s more…

Some of Goldwater’s statements in the 1990s aggravated many social conservatives. He endorsed Democrat Karan English in an Arizona congressional race, urged Republicans to lay off Bill Clinton over the Whitewater scandal, and criticized the military’s ban on homosexuals: “Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar.” He also said, “You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.” A few years before his death he went so far as to address the right wing, “Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you’ve hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have.”

In 1996, he told Bob Dole, whose own presidential campaign received lukewarm support from conservative Republicans: “We’re the new liberals of the Republican party. Can you imagine that?” In that same year, with Senator Dennis DeConcini, Goldwater endorsed an Arizona initiative to legalize medical marijuana against the will of social conservatives.

#13 MikeN Don’t let facts get in the way of a good argument. Goldwater was not a social liberal.

Endorsed Democrats… check
Gays in the military… check
Legalized marijuana… check
Sympathized with Bill Clinton… check
Against right-wing extremists… check

You might want to rethink that statement, Mikey.

By: Phydeau

Phydeau — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:25:26 +0000

Dang, a Republican making sense. Wonder if Rush will spank him and force him to come groveling on his show?

But the wingnut response here reassures me that the Republicans will remain the party of hate and very much in the minority.

Good work guys.

By: qsabe

qsabe — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 17:48:46 +0000

Vely intelesting. Repugs are all for gay rights, have a black major big leader of the party, next thing you know they will be voicing concern for individuals who aren’t rich. Guess they will take any steps to get control of the countries wealth back in their own hands.

By: WW_bobdobbs_D

WW_bobdobbs_D — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:44:20 +0000

MikeN

“what makes you say marriage is for couples? You are asking for a particular definition for state marriages.”

If you are referring to polygamy the State recognizing relationships of more than two people will complicate many of our property and parental rights laws. I’m open to the discussion of polygamy but I’d want to see a proposal can it be no more disruptive than interracial marriage or gay marriage. It’s a much more complex matter but if you want to make a case for it sell me. I’m open to hearing you on this.

Mormon’s support California’s Proposition 8 is baffling. The group that had to give up on there own definition of marriage to have there Territory become a State is now in the business of defining marriage for the rest of us. I guess what goes around comes around.

By: Paddy-O

Paddy-O — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:05:01 +0000

So, in CA, one of the most lib states, the majority of voters oppose homo marriage so the Repubs should embrace… Obama opposes, I guess that hurt him greatly…

By: MikeN

MikeN — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 14:54:19 +0000

WW, what makes you say marriage is for couples? You are asking for a particular definition for state marriages.

By: WW_bobdobbs_D

WW_bobdobbs_D — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:16:59 +0000

Why not MikeN?
Looks to me like he is arguing in favor Civil Rights for all.
The idea of Separate but equal(civil unions for gays marriage for straights) went out with other bankrupt ideas like segregation.

What gives you the right to define marriage for anyone but yourself? The State needs to call it and let it be exactly the same for all couples. If you want a church to define your union beyond that so be it, good for you. That is not a State matter and I don’t think Republicans by there own stated ideals of less government interference should want anything else. That terrible swift sword has two sharp edges and our founding fathers new that it would cut both ways.

Do the GOP leaders have any idea how many votes they have lost from fiscal conservatives who can’t in good conscious vote for their hateful social agenda? John Anderson was the last Republican I voted for in a presidential election and he had to run as an independent to get on the ballot.

By: MikeN

MikeN — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:16:42 +0000

said allowing same-sex marriage is in line with the conservative credo of keeping government out of people’s private lives.
He’d have a point if he was arguing against sodomy laws. But this isn’t about keeping government out of people’s private lives. It is gays demanding that their relationships be recognized as marriages, which they are not.

By: WW_bobdobbs_D

WW_bobdobbs_D — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 03:42:44 +0000

frogman said
“destruction of two cities filled with perverts”
Old Testament stuff if you are not going to take all of the Old Testament don’t pick and choose only what you are comfortable with, that would be being a hypocrite. Your Jesus is not weigh in on this one no matter how you twist the so called divinely interpreted gospels, HE told you to not judge that was for our God to do not you. Careful you judging like this might just be your ticked to hell.

web says:
WW_bobdobbs_D says: “I guess it’s hard to think with a cross up your
butt.” 

“I don’t know. Is it hard for you to think with your boyfriends up yours?”

Oh sorry no boyfriends just a wife, my butt is empty thanks for thinking of it. Do you spend a lot of time thinking about boyfriends and butts? Curious

I have no belief in the existence of your God and no belief in the non-existence of your God guess I’m just an Agnostic wondering why the party of less government is so interested in having the State tell the churches what marriage is. The State should honor all civil unions equally to do anything less would be a form of minority discrimination. If you need your marriage affirmed by your vision of God find a church that will tell you they way YOU are living is A-OK.

Now why do you care what people you will never meet think marriage is? And remember your Jesus told you not to be judging.

Really you could win back a lot of votes if you would get back to the real conservative values and let the freedom of/from religion thing work itself out.

By: Greg Allen

Greg Allen — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 02:53:01 +0000

Q) Why should anyone listen to the guy who led one of the worst presidential campaigns in memory?

A) Because he’s right on this one.

By: web

web — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 02:20:58 +0000

WW_bobdobbs_D says:
“I guess it’s hard to think with a cross up your butt.”
I don’t know. Is it hard for you to think with your boyfriends up yours?

By: frogman

frogman — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 02:19:36 +0000

WW_bobdobbs_D says, “You’d think there all knowing god would have foreseen that it might come up in the next few millennia and pointed out his post-Jesus views.”

You would think that the destruction of two cities filled with perverts is enough proof of what God thinks about homosexuality without much else being said. Still there are always a few simpletons that never understand the big picture.

By: WW_bobdobbs_D

WW_bobdobbs_D — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 01:17:58 +0000

Schmidt is so right but for the balance of the GOP

Homophobia all the way
Not wanting to let the Islamic Extremist dogma on gays rain supreme they made this into an ideological plank their platform.

Civil Rights
Not for everyone homosexuality Very Bad! Jesus never said so but they think that’s only because nobody asked him. You’d think there all knowing god would have foreseen that it might come up in the next few millennia and pointed out his post-Jesus views. They seem happy to just use the cut and paste snippets of pre-Jesus books like Leviticus to say what they want and omit what is no longer in style. Dems mostly seem happy with what they think Jesus did tell Luke in 6:37 “Judge not and you will not be judged; condemn not and you will not be condemned; forgive and you will be forgiven”

Strangely the party of less government wants the government to define marriage for them instead of their churches. I guess it’s hard to think with a cross up your butt.