GOP Silent on Prop 8

[Timshel]

They must all be figuring out how to word Ditzy's amendment.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...is-muted-as-judge-affirms-gay-marriage-rights

Just a few years ago, a court ruling that overturned a state's gay-marriage ban would have stirred stronger objections than those that arose from the political right this week after a federal judge invalidated California's voter-approved Proposition 8.

Prop. 8 overturned: Why Vaughn Walker ruled against gay-marriage ban
.But beating that drum now may risk being seen as so 2004. Instead, Republican leaders today are focused intently on the economy – and on blaming Democratic policies for its still-sluggish state – as they try to rally independents, libertarians, and "tea party" adherents around conservative economic ideals in advance of midterm elections.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40776.html


When a federal judge in California last week ruled the state’s ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, several political observers braced for a flood of Republican blasts on the issue that could end up resonating in campaigns nationally.

Instead, the anticipated GOP bang over the ban — known as Proposition 8 — amounted to little more than a whimper. There were angry columns and cries of protest from right-wing groups and conservative writers, but the majority of the Republican establishment kept on a bread-and-butter message — and party leaders are encouraging them not to stray.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/republicans-avoiding-gay-marriage-ruling/

 

[RockX]

What I have to laugh at his Obama and his so called stance. He was against Prop 8, but does not support marriage between gays. Guess that is like his voting when he was a senator and said "Present".

 

[Timshel]

What I have to laugh at his Obama and his so called stance. He was against Prop 8, but does not support marriage between gays. Guess that is like his voting when he was a senator and said "Present".

It's a politically calculated position and one the Dems have long held. They win the sympathies of civil libertarians over Republicans while not alienating the support of somewhat socially conservative Democrats (populist).

That's nothing new. The silence on Rove's once favored drum for the GOP is far more interesting.

 

[Don Quixote]

repugs are beating the drum of jobs jobs jobs

however, a message to those looking for jobs, do you want a resurgence of bush's failed policies that the repugs are promoting that lost the jobs in the first place

still it is hard to look at reality when there are 5 job seekers for every job and some of the jobs will never come back...

 

[Timshel]

The Republicans can win on the economy. It is political uncertainty over how far the Dems are going to go that is causing the sluggishness. If the Repubs regain some seats, the economy will start to rebound.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's a politically calculated position and one the Dems have long held. They win the sympathies of civil libertarians over Republicans while not alienating the support of somewhat socially conservative Democrats (populist).

That's nothing new. The silence on Rove's once favored drum for the GOP is far more interesting.

Web, in other words... It's nothing new for a Democrat to seemingly take both sides of a controversial issue, they do it all the time. This is how they manage to get elected to power by the stupid people who vote for them, because they apparently aren't aware of the doublespeak.

Obama is a Liberal, so pinheads understand he secretly wants Gay Marriage, but they understand he can't come out and publicly support that, no politician could survive on a national level, taking this position, it would be political suicide. So they basically allow him to run around telling an outright lie to the American people, taking the "public" stance of not supporting Gay Marriage, so he can retain the support of his African-American and Latino base, which is about 85~90% opposed to Gay Marriage.

I think the Republicans should develop a counter to this whole issue, and take it away from the Liberals. Adopt a Civil Unions plank, and present a sensible comprehensive plan to get government out of the 'marriage' business on a Federal level, and encourage States to do the same. As I have demonstrated, this is a "Problem" that we can fix, and satisfy virtually every side involved. Of course, it won't satisfy the antagonists, the ones who had rather have the "Issue" to bash the Christian Right with.

 

[Cypress]

Web, in other words... It's nothing new for a Democrat to seemingly take both sides of a controversial issue, they do it all the time. This is how they manage to get elected to power by the stupid people who vote for them, because they apparently aren't aware of the doublespeak.

Obama is a Liberal, so pinheads understand he secretly wants Gay Marriage, but they understand he can't come out and publicly support that, no politician could survive on a national level, taking this position, it would be political suicide. So they basically allow him to run around telling an outright lie to the American people, taking the "public" stance of not supporting Gay Marriage, so he can retain the support of his African-American and Latino base, which is about 85~90% opposed to Gay Marriage.

I think the Republicans should develop a counter to this whole issue, and take it away from the Liberals. Adopt a Civil Unions plank, and present a sensible comprehensive plan to get government out of the 'marriage' business on a Federal level, and encourage States to do the same. As I have demonstrated, this is a "Problem" that we can fix, and satisfy virtually every side involved. Of course, it won't satisfy the antagonists, the ones who had rather have the "Issue" to bash the Christian Right with.

Fascinating – and modestly disturbing – how your entire post on this issue is how to frame how it can be used to help or hurt the Republican Party from an electoral perspective. Good work!

These are people were talking about, bro. Does this really come down to strategizing how to score political points, with you?

I don’t care which republican or which democrat is personally against gay marriage. This is going to be settled in the courts, like I told you a billion times before. The Mexican courts just declared gay marriage legal in Mexico City. Are you telling me that the good folks of Alabama and Mississippi are less socially tolerant, and more anti-equality than the citizens of Mexico City? The only thing that actually matters is if politicians just stand down, get out of the way, and don’t do anything to roadblock this. I don’t care if Joe Biden, Barack Obama or Rudy Guiliani are against gays getting married on a personal level; they’re not actively going to campaign against the inevitable court decisions that are headed our way. 20 years from now, what the Republican Party and conservatives are most going to be remembered for is trying – several times – to get an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment added, and working feverishly in scores of states to get gay marriage-bans on state constitutions, and pro-actively discriminate against gay americans. Not cool, history is going to judge those actions to be immoral and discriminatory.

What exactly are you afraid of, and how are a few thousand gays getting married in Alabama going to affect your life in the least little way? Do you have anything tangible and concrete to provide? Are you afraid of being tempted by a lifestyle that achieves social acceptance? Or, is this just based on biblical crap and some emotional ties to some inconsequential traditional social conventions?


As for your ridiculous pleas to "negotiate" with you on an implausible and unworkable "civil unions" idea - no thanks. This is getting settled in the courts, and there's no need to "negotiate" with you, Jerry Falwell, or Rush Limbaugh. You dudes are irrelevant at this point.

 

[NOVA]

Fascinating – and modestly disturbing – how your entire post on this issue is how to frame how it can be used to help or hurt the Republican Party from an electoral perspective. Good work!

These are people were talking about, bro. Does this really come down to strategizing how to score political points, with you?

I don’t care which republican or which democrat is personally against gay marriage. This is going to be settled in the courts, like I told you a billion times before. The Mexican courts just declared gay marriage legal in Mexico City. Are you telling me that the good folks of Alabama and Mississippi are less socially tolerant, and more anti-equality than the citizens of Mexico City? The only thing that actually matters is if politicians just stand down, get out of the way, and don’t do anything to roadblock this. I don’t care if Joe Biden, Barack Obama or Rudy Guiliani are against gays getting married on a personal level; they’re not actively going to campaign against the inevitable court decisions that are headed our way. 20 years from now, what the Republican Party and conservatives are most going to be remembered for is trying – several times – to get an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment added, and working feverishly in scores of states to get gay marriage-bans on state constitutions, and pro-actively discriminate against gay americans. Not cool, history is going to judge those actions to be immoral and discriminatory.

What exactly are you afraid of, and how are a few thousand gays getting married in Alabama going to affect your life in the least little way? Do you have anything tangible and concrete to provide? Are you afraid of being tempted by a lifestyle that achieves social acceptance? Or, is this just based on biblical crap and some emotional ties to some inconsequential traditional social conventions?


As for your ridiculous pleas to "negotiate" with you on an implausible and unworkable "civil unions" idea - no thanks. This is getting settled in the courts, and there's no need to "negotiate" with your, Jerry Falwell, or Rush Limbaugh. You dudes are irrelevant at this point.

Exactly Cypress....
This is going to be settled in the courts, like you've stated before.

Cracks me up how the pinheads are looking for and expecting some blast from the Republicans about it.....it ain't that big a deal....the right may not like it, but it ain't gonna go to war over homo "marriage".....

RStringfield says:

Instead, the anticipated GOP bang over the ban — known as Proposition 8 — amounted to little more than a whimper. There were angry columns and cries of protest from right-wing groups and conservative writers, but the majority of the Republican establishment kept on a bread-and-butter message — and party leaders are encouraging them not to stray.

This clown must be drinking the Koolade from left wing lying blogs....just hoping for some Republicans to make a big stink over the homo marriage issue.....its obvious the left wingers would love it to happen and were waiting to pounce on the any Repub that actually fell for the bait....

The fact the even Obama is against this gay marriage crap doesn't seem to matter to the pinheads if they can bash a Republican for the same stance on the issue....funny shit.....

 

[Timshel]

Web, in other words... It's nothing new for a Democrat to seemingly take both sides of a controversial issue, they do it all the time. This is how they manage to get elected to power by the stupid people who vote for them, because they apparently aren't aware of the doublespeak.

I just pointed out that they use doublespeak. Are you attempting to claim I don't know that they are doing that?

Obama is a Liberal, so pinheads understand he secretly wants Gay Marriage, but they understand he can't come out and publicly support that, no politician could survive on a national level, taking this position, it would be political suicide. So they basically allow him to run around telling an outright lie to the American people, taking the "public" stance of not supporting Gay Marriage, so he can retain the support of his African-American and Latino base, which is about 85~90% opposed to Gay Marriage.

I don't know what he thinks. But it's obvious that taking a strong position on gay marriage has not been politically feasible. It's the nature of politics, as it's not really how many take one side or the other, but how many feel strongly about it. Homophobes outnumber homosexuals. Enlightened heteros may support gay marriage but it's not their only issue.

What is different is the Republicans are now feeling the risk of alienating voters by taking a strong stand.

The game is nearly over, for you folks.

I think the Republicans should develop a counter to this whole issue, and take it away from the Liberals. Adopt a Civil Unions plank, and present a sensible comprehensive plan to get government out of the 'marriage' business on a Federal level, and encourage States to do the same. As I have demonstrated, this is a "Problem" that we can fix, and satisfy virtually every side involved. Of course, it won't satisfy the antagonists, the ones who had rather have the "Issue" to bash the Christian Right with.

Yeah, that's not going to fly, it's too late and no one is going to take you seriously. You are just grasping at straws.

 

[Timshel]

Exactly Cypress....
This is going to be settled in the courts, like you've stated before.

Cracks me up how the pinheads are looking for and expecting some blast from the Republicans about it.....it ain't that big a deal....the right may not like it, but it ain't gonna go to war over homo "marriage".....


This clown must be drinking the Koolade from left wing lying blogs....just hoping for some Republicans to make a big stink over the homo marriage issue.....its obvious the left wingers would love it to happen and were waiting to pounce on the any Repub that actually fell for the bait....

The fact the even Obama is against this gay marriage crap doesn't seem to matter to the pinheads if they can bash a Republican for the same stance on the issue....funny shit.....

Are you klidding? This has been a major issue for Republicans for the last decade or more. Now they are all but abandoning it. That is interesting and noteworthy.

 

[Cypress]

Exactly Cypress....
This is going to be settled in the courts, like you've stated before.

Cracks me up how the pinheads are looking for and expecting some blast from the Republicans about it.....it ain't that big a deal....the right may not like it, but it ain't gonna go to war over homo "marriage".....


This clown must be drinking the Koolade from left wing lying blogs....just hoping for some Republicans to make a big stink over the homo marriage issue.....its obvious the left wingers would love it to happen and were waiting to pounce on the any Repub that actually fell for the bait....

The fact the even Obama is against this gay marriage crap doesn't seem to matter to the pinheads if they can bash a Republican for the same stance on the issue....funny shit.....

LOL @ me "hoping for republicans to make a big stink" over the "homo marriage" issue. Priceless.

Uh, it was you dudes and the GOP more broadly who made it a big issue for the last decade. I didn't put a gun to your head and tell you to do that. You made it a political football to drive the conservative base to the polls. Did you really think it was all a nefarious scheme by cypress, to make you dudes go bat shit crazy over gay marriage? Was there something I did to force you to call it "homo marriage" in your post, or was that a freudian slip of your inner bigot?

Obama isn't going to decide gay marriage, bro. It's going to be decided where it belongs - in the courts as an equality under the law issue. Obama is going to stand down, and not try to road block it. Gutless? Probably. But, Obama isn't the problem. He's a bystander who is going to stand down. I would say at this point, pretty much all liberals, libertarians, and most moderates are bystanders. They ain't the problem. Its the dudes who are - and have been - proactively working to road block gay marriage that are the problem. That's pretty much been the republican party, I'm not aware of any democrats, liberals, or libertarians who actively work to get State or Federal constitutional bans put in place to road block marriage equality.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I just pointed out that they use doublespeak. Are you attempting to claim I don't know that they are doing that?

Stringy, when I said "stupid" people didn't apparently realize the doublespeak, I wasn't actually referring to you... I know how you would mistakenly confuse that, I am sorry, I should have clarified that I wasn't talking about you. I think it is wonderful you brought the doublespeak and lies from the Democrats to light, and you said it in such a nice way. Very tactful indeed.

I don't know what he thinks. But it's obvious that taking a strong position on gay marriage has not been politically feasible. It's the nature of politics, as it's not really how many take one side or the other, but how many feel strongly about it. Homophobes outnumber homosexuals. Enlightened heteros may support gay marriage but it's not their only issue.

No, here is the thing, about 80% of us do not support Gay Marriage. The number tends to run much higher in the black and latino/hispanic community, which are very large Democrat demographics, and they can't afford to lose them. So they lie, and hope that courts and judges can make Gay Marriage law of the land, like they did with Abortion. But the Constitution doesn't give courts superior power over The People.... I'm sorry, but it just don't!

What is different is the Republicans are now feeling the risk of alienating voters by taking a strong stand.

A strong stand? Like what, Stringy? You want to see redneck republicans out in the streets with their Bibles, shouting epitaphs at homosexuals, and demanding we have prayer in schools again??? Should the GOP do that, Genius? Should we have Rush and Sarah instruct the Tea Party to burn effigies of 'Queers' and maybe get violent and break or blow up some shit? Yeah... that sounds like it might be a really smart thing to do, if you're a Republican, right???

The game is nearly over, for you folks.

:lmao:

.....oh the IRONY!

Yeah, that's not going to fly, it's too late and no one is going to take you seriously. You are just grasping at straws.

Not grasping at straws at all, in fact I think it can very easily be woven into an overall theme of smaller more limited government. Look, this should largely be a 'states rights' issue, something to be determined by the many states. There is nothing in the Constitution, authorizing our Federal Government to regulate domestic partnerships of any kind, in any way. If the Federal Government is somehow 'establishing' some religious viewpoint in the current definition and recognition of 'marriage', then the government should remedy that problem, by eliminating the Federal government's role entirely. If there is any potential reason for the Fed to retain status of 'married/single' households, for taxes or whatever, they would simply abandon the terminology and recognize civil union contracts instead. The rest of this should be left up to the States.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Stringy, when I said "stupid" people didn't apparently realize the doublespeak, I wasn't actually referring to you... I know how you would mistakenly confuse that, I am sorry, I should have clarified that I wasn't talking about you. I think it is wonderful you brought the doublespeak and lies from the Democrats to light, and you said it in such a nice way. Very tactful indeed.



No, here is the thing, about 80% of us do not support Gay Marriage. The number tends to run much higher in the black and latino/hispanic community, which are very large Democrat demographics, and they can't afford to lose them. So they lie, and hope that courts and judges can make Gay Marriage law of the land, like they did with Abortion. But the Constitution doesn't give courts superior power over The People.... I'm sorry, but it just don't!



A strong stand? Like what, Stringy? You want to see redneck republicans out in the streets with their Bibles, shouting epitaphs at homosexuals, and demanding we have prayer in schools again??? Should the GOP do that, Genius? Should we have Rush and Sarah instruct the Tea Party to burn effigies of 'Queers' and maybe get violent and break or blow up some shit? Yeah... that sounds like it might be a really smart thing to do, if you're a Republican, right???


:lmao:

.....oh the IRONY!



Not grasping at straws at all, in fact I think it can very easily be woven into an overall theme of smaller more limited government. Look, this should largely be a 'states rights' issue, something to be determined by the many states. There is nothing in the Constitution, authorizing our Federal Government to regulate domestic partnerships of any kind, in any way. If the Federal Government is somehow 'establishing' some religious viewpoint in the current definition and recognition of 'marriage', then the government should remedy that problem, by eliminating the Federal government's role entirely. If there is any potential reason for the Fed to retain status of 'married/single' households, for taxes or whatever, they would simply abandon the terminology and recognize civil union contracts instead. The rest of this should be left up to the States.

I see you're once again grasping at that mystical 80%, that you said you had no proof of and didn't really care if it was fact or not.

 

[Timshel]

No, here is the thing, about 80% of us do not support Gay Marriage. The number tends to run much higher in the black and latino/hispanic community, which are very large Democrat demographics, and they can't afford to lose them. So they lie, and hope that courts and judges can make Gay Marriage law of the land, like they did with Abortion. But the Constitution doesn't give courts superior power over The People.... I'm sorry, but it just don't!

LOL, again with that 80% nonsense.

Yes, that is what I said. He cannot piss of the populist. There is no reason for him too if the Republicans are bashing gays anyway.

A strong stand? Like what, Stringy? You want to see redneck republicans out in the streets with their Bibles, shouting epitaphs at homosexuals, and demanding we have prayer in schools again??? Should the GOP do that, Genius? Should we have Rush and Sarah instruct the Tea Party to burn effigies of 'Queers' and maybe get violent and break or blow up some shit? Yeah... that sounds like it might be a really smart thing to do, if you're a Republican, right???

:lmao:

.....oh the IRONY!

What are you talking about?

The stories are about how the GOP politicians and pundits are not making noise on this issue. Nobody said anything about riots.

Not grasping at straws at all, in fact I think it can very easily be woven into an overall theme of smaller more limited government. Look, this should largely be a 'states rights' issue, something to be determined by the many states. There is nothing in the Constitution, authorizing our Federal Government to regulate domestic partnerships of any kind, in any way. If the Federal Government is somehow 'establishing' some religious viewpoint in the current definition and recognition of 'marriage', then the government should remedy that problem, by eliminating the Federal government's role entirely. If there is any potential reason for the Fed to retain status of 'married/single' households, for taxes or whatever, they would simply abandon the terminology and recognize civil union contracts instead. The rest of this should be left up to the States.

It should not be a state's rights issue. A tenth amendment position forces the overturn of Loving and other rulings that are based on the opinion that the 14th amendment applies with relation to marriage. Your state just took it's misceganation laws off the books in 2000.

Marriage is a fundamental right of the individual not the state.

 

[Liberty]

repugs are beating the drum of jobs jobs jobs

however, a message to those looking for jobs, do you want a resurgence of bush's failed policies that the repugs are promoting that lost the jobs in the first place

still it is hard to look at reality when there are 5 job seekers for every job and some of the jobs will never come back...

I don't see how comparing Bush to this moment has merit. It's obvious that Obama has accelerated Bush policies. Why hug one, and speak ill of the other as if there's a difference in the subject matter you contend.

 

[Don Quixote]

I don't see how comparing Bush to this moment has merit. It's obvious that Obama has accelerated Bush policies. Why hug one, and speak ill of the other as if there's a difference in the subject matter you contend.

principally, the gwb tax cuts that the dems went along with to cut taxes for the lower brackets set to expire at the end of this year, the repubs in the senate want to extend them producing a multi-trillion deficit

also, plans to infuse further funds into the economy are being blocked by the repubs in the senate - like the bills to give aid to the first responders of 9/11 and extend unemployment benefits

pumping money into a failing economy is a classic means of staving off a depression

as for blaming bho for the failing economy, it is slowly, very slowly, recovering and still needs more help that the repubs do not want to give

bho inherited this economic disaster and has prevented a depression with his policies - changing this disaster, which was in several years in the making, will not be easy or cheap - think of trying to change the course of an ocean liner traveling at full speed - especially if you trying to reverse course

i am not saying that some dems are not on the same page as the repubs, but mainly, it is the repubs policy that is holding things up

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Marriage is a fundamental right of the individual not the state.

I disagree. Marriage can't possibly be a fundamental individual right, it requires the consent of a male and female, and that doesn't constitute an individual! Now, if you want to MAKE marriage a fundamental individual right, you should first start with establishing it for the dog-butt ugly people first! They far outnumber gays! You could pass a Federal law requiring people to only date or socialize with the dog-butt ugly! They simply can not be allowed to just marry the first pretty face that comes along, they must demonstrate they have given ugly people their fair shot, after all, it's their fundamental rights we're talking about here!

 

[Timshel]

I disagree. Marriage can't possibly be a fundamental individual right, it requires the consent of a male and female, and that doesn't constitute an individual! Now, if you want to MAKE marriage a fundamental individual right, you should first start with establishing it for the dog-butt ugly people first! They far outnumber gays! You could pass a Federal law requiring people to only date or socialize with the dog-butt ugly! They simply can not be allowed to just marry the first pretty face that comes along, they must demonstrate they have given ugly people their fair shot, after all, it's their fundamental rights we're talking about here!

The right to contract is a fundamental INDIVIDUAL right. That right does not guranatee that anyone has to join you in a contract and it NEVER has been understood in that way. Further, no one is being forced to marry. You are grasping at straws and making yourself appear foolish.

 

[Timshel]

The right to bear arms does not guranatee you a gun.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The right to contract is a fundamental INDIVIDUAL right. That right does not guranatee that anyone has to join you in a contract and it NEVER has been understood in that way. Further, no one is being forced to marry. You are grasping at straws and making yourself appear foolish.

There is no individual right to contract. I have absolutely NO right to contract as a pitcher for the Yankees....NONE! I can't exercise my fundamental right to contract with a record company to publish my music! Any contract, requires the fundamental action of two (or more) parties, therefore, it is NOT an "individual" right.

Marriage is not a contract, it is the union of a man and woman, and it's ALWAYS been understood in that way. Gays are not being FORBIDDEN to marry. It is YOU who continues to grasp at straws, and flounder, in this debate.