RNC chief clarifies: Yes, our party still believes marriage is between a man and a woman

posted at 6:41 pm on March 20, 2013 by Allahpundit

I’m not surprised he said it — it’s in the party platform, after all — but I am surprised he didn’t say it more enthusiastically. Between the conciliatory attitude in the RNC “autopsy” towards gay-marriage supporters and Priebus’s own cheery nonchalance about Rob Portman’s support for SSM, social conservatives must be wondering about the party’s commitment to them. Russert asking him about it here was an easy opportunity for Priebus to say something reassuring. Instead, he ends up treating the section in the platform about traditional marriage almost as a technicality. Note to Reince from a pro-gay marriage righty: A chunk of your base is getting nervous.

“The report didn’t mention religion much, if at all,” said Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association. “You cannot grow your party by distancing yourself from your base, and this report doesn’t reinforce the values that attracted me and many other people into the Republican Party in the first place. It just talks about reaching out to other groups.”

Sandy Rios, an Evangelical radio host and Fox News contributor, said the RNC report’s proposals amount to a “namby-pamby” abdication of religious values, and warned that the party could soon lose the grassroots engine that has powered its electoral victories for decades.

“They should be deeply concerned they’re going to be alienating their base,” Rios said, adding, “It seems to me that the leadership of the party is intent on that course. Most Christian conservatives are not going to be party loyalists over principle, and so the GOP has a lot more to lose than Christians.”…

If Republican officials feel confident that they can soften the party’s stance on social issues without any real risk of losing their religious base, it may be because the Christian right hasn’t presented a united front in nearly a decade. Not since 2004, when Evangelicals swarmed to the ballot to support a marriage amendment in Ohio, and re-elect George W. Bush, have those voters managed to coalesce around a winning presidential candidate.

Easy prediction: They’ll present a united front in 2016, especially if the Supreme Court forces the issue front and center by finding a right to gay marriage in the Fourteenth Amendment this year. That’s going to be agony for a candidate like Rubio, who’s looking to build a coalition between conservatives and centrists and doesn’t want the headache of having to decide whether to support a Federal Marriage Amendment that’s going nowhere. Conversely, it’ll be a gift to an avowed social con like Santorum or Huckabee who can make the issue a centerpiece of their campaign. The next party platform will be a headache too. Does the GOP stick with the current formulation of marriage between one man and one woman as the “national standard”? Do they downgrade to a federalist approach where they endorse one man/one woman but specify that the states should decide? Or do they go totally squishy by saying that factions within the party disagree? Hard to believe social cons will go for that.

Apropos of nothing, Pew’s out today with new polling data on gay marriage. Most of the numbers are familiar by now, and the ones that aren’t familiar aren’t surprising. E.g., when people who changed their minds on gay marriage are asked why, a plurality say it’s because someone they know is gay, just as Rob Portman did. A key data set:

trad

I found this fascinating, too:

p

I never would have guessed that a minor tweak to the question could swing the numbers by 10 points. (Presumably some people are hearing the word “illegal” and thinking criminal punishment, which pushes them into the pro-SSM camp.) Someone needs to go back and look carefully at the wording of various state ballot initiatives to see how they correspond to results at the polls. If you want to maximize your chances of banning gay marriage, keep the word “illegal” out of it.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

….but were his fingers crossed when he said it?

portlandon on March 20, 2013 at 6:45 PM

One wonders why you would feel you have to say it–much like Obama felt compelled to say he wasn’t a dictator, hmmm?

Don L on March 20, 2013 at 6:45 PM

GayGas strikes again!

Myron Falwell on March 20, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Finally!

happytobehere on March 20, 2013 at 6:47 PM

He’s lying.

Kensington on March 20, 2013 at 6:48 PM

He’s lying.

Kensington

It wouldn’t be the first time.

xblade on March 20, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Can’t be federalist. We need to force gay marriage on the states. Don’t worry, they’ll learn to love it like baby killing.

happytobehere on March 20, 2013 at 6:49 PM

phew !

FlaMurph on March 20, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Apropos of nothing, Pew’s out today with new polling data on gay marriage.

Until they add a “no opinion/none of my business” option to the questioning, that Pew poll – and all others like it – are Chris Christie-sized nothingburgers.

Myron Falwell on March 20, 2013 at 6:53 PM

A union? Yes by all means, a marriage no way.

mixplix on March 20, 2013 at 6:54 PM

…Rinsed Penis…!

KOOLAID2 on March 20, 2013 at 6:58 PM

A union? Yes by all means, a marriage no way.
mixplix on March 20, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Oh, yes way. It is going to happen. You can’t stop it. No one can.

happytobehere on March 20, 2013 at 6:58 PM

…moderated…Rinsed Peni$…!

KOOLAID2 on March 20, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Awww this hurts huh Allahpundit?

sadsushi on March 20, 2013 at 7:02 PM

About time we had a gay thread.

Mimzey on March 20, 2013 at 7:02 PM

I’m not surprised he said it — it’s in the party platform, after all — but I am surprised he didn’t say it more enthusiastically.

I’m not.

Stoic Patriot on March 20, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Why doesn’t the GOP leadership, and our candidates, just cut to the chase and say, flatly “Just tell us what you want to hear and we’ll say it. We just want you all to keep voting for our candidates and keep us in the political class. We have no real principles or convictions of our own… so just tell us what it is that you most want us to say and we’ll say it. Because, let’s face it, you know as well as we do that we’re going to continue to cut deals with the opposition that sell your principles down the river whenever it’s politically expedient… and it’s ALWAYS politically expedient to make a deal.”?

This explains why it is that we keep having these walk back moments of ‘clarification’. The political class lives in its own echo chamber and when they suddenly realize that what they’ve been discussing amongst themselves as they go about cutting their deals has the base recoiling in shock, they try to ‘clarify’ what they said that provoked the base’s ire.

It doesn’t matter what the issue is at hand. It could be same sex marriage, or amnesty for illegal aliens, or budget talks. In those moments when the political class inadvertently gets carried away with themselves and openly says what they’ve been privately discussing amongst themselves, they are obliged to come back to the base and ‘clarify’.

They could save a great deal of time and money if they just admitted that they are doing what they wish, what is politically expedient for them with no regard for the constituents who elected them to office.

thatsafactjack on March 20, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Obligatory from Priebus. It’s just words and I’m not buying what he’s selling.

conservative pilgrim on March 20, 2013 at 7:10 PM

In Washington-DC-speak does that mean that if a man surgically “becomes” a woman and a woman surgically “becomes” a man then they can get hitched?

viking01 on March 20, 2013 at 7:10 PM

condoms: $5
KY jelly: $10
dinner and a movie: $75
leadership on moral issues: nonexistent

/Gay marriage: what’s in YOUR wallet?

Paul-Cincy on March 20, 2013 at 7:10 PM

I’m not surprised he said it — it’s in the party platform, after all — but I am surprised he didn’t say it more enthusiastically.

I don’t know why you say that. Pandering to the gays is just as important as not offending other parasite (i.e. single issue) groups.

Clearly, if one is a homosexual you don’t give a rat’s ass about the economy, national security, the debt, the deficit, entitlement programs, or whatever else. All that matters is the number of people that tell you that they support the idea that churches and society should overnight deem your lifestyle choices normal and fully equal with the deal that has been around for a few thousand years.

The GOP is in full pander mode for any parasite they can find.

Happy Nomad on March 20, 2013 at 7:11 PM

The Republican Party will stand foursquare in favor of heterosexual marriage exactly as long as it takes for a situation to arise wherein John Boehner can lead his group of followers over to vote with the Democrats and against the majority of the Republican caucus to make gay marriage the law of the land.

At that point the change will be cited by the Institutional Republicans as proof that the party can “grow”; and if Conservatives do not like it, any deleterious effects on the number of elected Republicans will somehow be because Conservatives insist on ideological purity and are not practical.

We have heard this song before.

If Conservatives splitting from the Institutional Republican party means that Left gets what they want anyway; since we are going to have the Left win every time when the Republicans surrender, why can’t we at least lose fighting for a party that will actually oppose the Democrats?

Subotai Bahadur on March 20, 2013 at 7:11 PM

I’ll bet growing up with the name Reinhold Reince Priebus, he’s had to clarify himself out of bigger potential azz-kickings than this SSM skirmish.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 20, 2013 at 7:20 PM

ahahaha “Reinth Preibuth”

Jeddite on March 20, 2013 at 7:21 PM

I’ll bet growing up with the name Reinhold Reince Priebus, he’s had to clarify himself out of bigger potential azz-kickings than this SSM skirmish.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 20, 2013 at 7:20 PM

I’d be on him for violating the “i before e except after c” rule.

Paul-Cincy on March 20, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Getting involved in homosexual “marriage” is like taking a constitutional stand on shacking up.

Marriage only intersects with government because of the children from a marriage. The children have a right to the property and wealth acquired by the married couple i.e. their parents. Other than inheritance laws why does the State need to be involved at all?

Mojave Mark on March 20, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Think I’ll just sit this one out yet again…

I will add this tho;

L.i.B.

We can’t win for losing :-(

Scrumpy on March 20, 2013 at 7:26 PM

Interesting that just as the Supremos are mulling over Prop. 8…

… everything is turning gay.

Just like Obowmacare…

… Justice Roberts will still want to be invited to the cocktail parties.

Seven Percent Solution on March 20, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Whatever. I’m done with the GOP. They believe in nothing. They say one thing one day to appease group #1 and then say the opposite the next day to appease group #2. At least the democrats have an overall strategy of appeasement. The GOP just plays it by ear, changing its strategy and positions on the fly, and lets itself get forced into a corner so that it looks like a bunch of incompetent bumbling idiots (which they are).

besser tot als rot on March 20, 2013 at 7:29 PM

I’d be on him for violating the “i before e except after c” rule.

Paul-Cincy on March 20, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Aah, but the exception: ‘When sounded as ‘A’, as in “neighbor” and “weigh”!

:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 20, 2013 at 7:29 PM

The really sad thing is that Michael Steele aint lookin’ so bad now.

besser tot als rot on March 20, 2013 at 7:29 PM

I’ll bet growing up with the name Reinhold Reince Priebus, he’s had to clarify himself out of bigger potential azz-kickings than this SSM skirmish.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 20, 2013 at 7:20 PM

I bet he hates his parents. Not even a cool set of initials. R.R. Priebus sounds like a hybrid of a train, Prius, and big yellow device that transports children to school.

Happy Nomad on March 20, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Apparently amnesty is popular the GOP must support…

Gay marriage is popular so the GOP must support…

Pro-choice is popular so the GOP must support…

Polls are showing Obamacare gaining support so that will be the next thing the GOP will fold on..

And really HotAir you were overdue for another gay thread.. It has only been what? 20 seconds…

melle1228 on March 20, 2013 at 7:35 PM

And really HotAir you were overdue for another gay thread.. It has only been what? 20 seconds…
melle1228 on March 20, 2013 at 7:35 PM

The gay threads continue until morale improves!

I’m interested in what’s after amnesty, guns, gay marriage. We’ve already got abortion and “govt healthcare”. What’s next that I need to approve of? I don’t want to look uncool.

happytobehere on March 20, 2013 at 7:41 PM

Low income social conservatives who vote for Republicans strictly for the social issues will have no reason to vote for Republicans. If they vote at all they may decide to vote for Democrats and get the freebies. Why not?

Rose on March 20, 2013 at 7:41 PM

I bet he hates his parents. Not even a cool set of initials. R.R. Priebus sounds like a hybrid of a train, Prius, and big yellow device that transports children to school.

Happy Nomad on March 20, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Heh. To me I can hear him announced as:

Reinhold Reince Priebus, the 17th Prince of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg!

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 20, 2013 at 7:41 PM

Low income social conservatives who vote for Republicans strictly for the social issues will have no reason to vote for Republicans. If they vote at all they may decide to vote for Democrats and get the freebies. Why not?
Rose on March 20, 2013 at 7:41 PM

Guns. For now.

happytobehere on March 20, 2013 at 7:42 PM

And really HotAir you were overdue for another gay thread.. It has only been what? 20 seconds…

melle1228 on March 20, 2013 at 7:35 PM

I hear the Interior Decorator’s Association and Show-Tunes Composer’s Guild are new sponsors.

viking01 on March 20, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Low income social conservatives who vote for Republicans strictly for the social issues will have no reason to vote for Republicans. If they vote at all they may decide to vote for Democrats and get the freebies. Why not?

Rose on March 20, 2013 at 7:41 PM

I think it is funny that they take the South for granted. A lot of the red south are social issue voters. Good luck turning the north red(never going to happen) while the south goes blue.

melle1228 on March 20, 2013 at 7:44 PM

happytobehere on March 20, 2013 at 7:42 PM

You have a point, but it may not be enough for those who don’t own guns.

Rose on March 20, 2013 at 7:45 PM

Now two dudes are gonna get married? And they get to raise children without a woman around? This War on Women has gone too far!

Women, what are they good for? amirite!

happytobehere on March 20, 2013 at 7:46 PM

To me I can hear him announced as:

Reinhold Reince Priebus, the 17th Prince of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg!

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 20, 2013 at 7:41 PM

Hey, I can appreciate his problem.

Of course, I don’t go through life as Happy Nomad. My real name is extremely formal and leads to assumptions that are completely off base as to who I am or how I grew up. I’m fortunate in two respects. I’m not a Jr. or III. And I have a cool set of initials to go by.

Happy Nomad on March 20, 2013 at 7:48 PM

melle1228 on March 20, 2013 at 7:44 PM

They definitely are going to lose more voters than they gain.

Rose on March 20, 2013 at 7:48 PM

Pathetic.

There you go. A comment that works quite well for Priebus, political elites, RINOs, and the GOP, all at the same time.

And of course, Hot Air for posting yet another gaystory.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 20, 2013 at 7:51 PM

The GOP can keep the traditional-marriage preference in their platform if they really have to… but at least drop the constitutional-amendment stuff. Say you’ll leave it up to the states and that you’ll support the states that don’t approve gay marriage.

TMOverbeck on March 20, 2013 at 7:51 PM

When I read Reince Priebus I think of Prince Reibus, as if someone had a typo. But I have never heard it pronounced.

Rose on March 20, 2013 at 7:53 PM

I never would have guessed that a minor tweak to the question could swing the numbers by 10 points. (Presumably some people are hearing the word “illegal” and thinking criminal punishment, which pushes them into the pro-SSM camp.) Someone needs to go back and look carefully at the wording of various state ballot initiatives to see how they correspond to results at the polls. If you want to maximize your chances of banning gay marriage, keep the word “illegal” out of it.

Of course it is how you ask the question. NOBODY wants gays to go to jail. The whole narrative that we want them punished or we want to be in their bedroom is bunk and is tactic used by gay marriage supporter to make us out to be members of the Westboro Church. I would lay odds that the whole “illegal’ tactic was used in many polls to swing the results and as a scare tactic..

melle1228 on March 20, 2013 at 7:53 PM

The GOP can keep the traditional-marriage preference in their platform if they really have to… but at least drop the constitutional-amendment stuff. Say you’ll leave it up to the states and that you’ll support the states that don’t approve gay marriage.

TMOverbeck on March 20, 2013 at 7:51 PM

I am going to reiterate what I said in the other thread:

I agree with everything you said. Unfortunately as a socon, I am not the one that moved issues like abortion and gay marriage to the federal level. I was quite happy voting for both in my conservative state and letting Massachusetts and California become the liberal disasters they were born to be. It is liberal Massachusetts and California and the LIBERALS in those states who insist on making those issue a federal issue and pushing them on to my state, capice-

melle1228 on March 20, 2013 at 7:54 PM

TMOverbeck on March 20, 2013 at 7:51 PM

They would need to gut quite a bit of the platform. The section headings are in bold, but it’s my emphasis within the paragraphs.

Defending Marriage Against An Activist Judiciary

A serious threat to our country’s constitutional order, perhaps even more dangerous than presidential malfeasance, is an activist judiciary, in which some judges usurp the powers reserved to other branches of government. A blatant example has been the court-ordered redefinition of marriage in several States. This is more than a matter of warring legal concepts and ideals. It is an assault on the foundations of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values.

A Sacred Contract: Defense of Marriage

That is why Congressional Republicans took the lead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. The current Administration’s open defiance of this constitutional principle—in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts—makes a mockery of the President’s inaugural oath. We commend the United States House of Representatives and State Attorneys General who have defended these laws when they have been attacked in the courts. We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other States to do so.

The section on the First Amendment and religious freedom is also relevant.

The First Amendment: The Foresight of Our Founders to Protect Religious Freedom

The first provision of the First Amendment concerns freedom of religion. That guarantee reflected Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which declared that no one should “suffer on account of his religious opinion or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion….” That assurance has never been more needed than it is today, as liberal elites try to drive religious beliefs—and religious believers—out of the public square. The Founders of the American Republic universally agree that democracy presupposes a moral people and that, in the words of George Washington’s Farewell Address, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

The most offensive instance of this war on religion has been the current Administration’s attempt to compel faith-related institutions, as well as believing individuals, to contravene their deeply held religious, moral, or ethical beliefs regarding health services, traditional marriage, or abortion….

We pledge to respect the religious beliefs and rights of conscience of all Americans and to safeguard the independence of their institutions from government….We assert every citizen’s right to apply religious values to public policy and the right of faith-based organizations to participate fully in public programs without renouncing their beliefs, removing religious symbols, or submitting to government-imposed hiring practices. We oppose government discrimination against businesses due to religious views. We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America and other service organizations whose values are under assault and condemn the State blacklisting of religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples. We condemn the hate campaigns, threats of violence, and vandalism by proponents of same-sex marriage against advocates of traditional marriage and call for a federal investigation into attempts to deny religious believers their civil rights.

INC on March 20, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Hey, I can appreciate his problem.

Of course, I don’t go through life as Happy Nomad. My real name is extremely formal and leads to assumptions that are completely off base as to who I am or how I grew up. I’m fortunate in two respects. I’m not a Jr. or III. And I have a cool set of initials to go by.

Happy Nomad on March 20, 2013 at 7:48 PM

Lucky you! Guys with amusing names often end up heading the U.N. (see: Kofi Annan, Ban Ki-moon, Boutros Boutros-Ghali)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 20, 2013 at 8:01 PM

I understand why liberals are so obsessed with gay stuff, but why have Republicans spent do much time on it? There’s no logic to gay marriage, so I can only guess its about being liked or looked at as sensitive.

Oh, we’ll. Btw, even when he says something I agree with, Priebus always seems like he’s in smarmy, politician mode. Can’t say I’ve ever gotten that “genuine” feeling from him.

Dongemaharu on March 20, 2013 at 8:03 PM

Aah, but the exception: ‘When sounded as ‘A’, as in “neighbor” and “weigh”!

:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 20, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Awesome. But then, Reince is pronounced “RAYNCE”? Yikes.

Paul-Cincy on March 20, 2013 at 8:06 PM

Ah, here it is. I knew AP couldn’t go all day without a SSM thread of some kind – complete with the obligatory dubious polls!

Midas on March 20, 2013 at 8:07 PM

I would love to see Phyllis Schlafly as RNC chair. The wailing and cries would be something to behold.

INC on March 20, 2013 at 8:12 PM

I understand why liberals are so obsessed with gay stuff, but why have Republicans spent do much time on it? There’s no logic to gay marriage, so I can only guess its about being liked or looked at as sensitive.

Oh, we’ll. Btw, even when he says something I agree with, Priebus always seems like he’s in smarmy, politician mode. Can’t say I’ve ever gotten that “genuine” feeling from him.

Dongemaharu on March 20, 2013 at 8:03 PM

Could be a combo of the PC hip culture we live in. I swear sometimes I just want to change my stance it will shut the whole debate down and it will go away, but then I know it won’t. Gay marriage is not the end; only the beginning. Of course I am immune to the PC hip culture, after you are called a bigot hater homophobe the first 85 times; it tends to lose its effectiveness.

melle1228 on March 20, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Awesome. But then, Reince is pronounced “RAYNCE”? Yikes.

Paul-Cincy on March 20, 2013 at 8:06 PM

Aw, dangit! He even breaks the ei/ie exceptions. The closest to how he pronounces his first name is “Rinds”. Y’know, like melon rinds or pork rinds…or Priebus, Reince.

;)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 20, 2013 at 8:18 PM

Careful Reince. Hispanics support gay marriage. And as we all know, the only thing that matters in this country is Hispanics.

xblade on March 20, 2013 at 8:36 PM

The whole narrative that we want them punished or we want to be in their bedroom is bunk and is tactic used by gay marriage supporter to make us out to be members of the Westboro Church. I would lay odds that the whole “illegal’ tactic was used in many polls to swing the results and as a scare tactic..

melle1228 on March 20, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Exactly.

The narrative rides on their (the gay lobby) inherent unwillingness to debate the issue in good faith.

They use misleading and euphemistic words and phrases like marriage “equality” and gay “rights” to distract. They avoid rational discussion with calm opponents, and instead demonize and smear.

The lobby is a bully that wants to use the government as a fist.

Saltysam on March 20, 2013 at 8:53 PM

*exhales*

I was getting worried, Allah. No gay marriage post for the day by 6:30 and I was getting ready to send a search party looking for you.

alchemist19 on March 20, 2013 at 8:57 PM

I understand why liberals are so obsessed with gay stuff, but why have Republicans spent do much time on it?

Dongemaharu on March 20, 2013 at 8:03 PM

Because they let the left set the agenda.

I honestly could not care less about the gays. It ranks very low on my concerns as do any of these single issue matters. I don’t care who pays for the contraception of sluts like Sandra Fluke (who by her own admission must be pretty randy to blow through that much contraception). I don’t care who “marries who” nor do I particularly care about paths to citizenship for illegal aliens.

What I do care about are the principles behind these “squirrel in a hailstorm” issues. Which is to say I don’t care if sodomites get legal recognition of their relationship so long as it does not harm the traditional definition of marriage. I don’t care who pays the freight for Sandra Fluke’s vagina so long as religious institutions are not forced to do so in violation of the First Amendment. I’m less concerned about giving amnesty to the illegal aliens in this nation than I am in closing the border and ensuring that their cousins don’t have the same opportunity they stole from those who attempted to do it the legal way.

Happy Nomad on March 20, 2013 at 8:57 PM

I’m more of a libertarian than Republican but as a national party the Republicans must have social conservatives on their side. Not just for votes but for their principles; if not we will risk ending up like the dems where the end justifies the means. Where truth is relative- and power is God.

OliverB on March 20, 2013 at 9:07 PM

If you want some interesting results, try wording the question: “would you support the government forcing individuals to recognize gay marriage, despite religious belief or tradition?”

cthulhu on March 20, 2013 at 9:12 PM

I’m more of a libertarian than Republican but as a national party the Republicans must have social conservatives on their side. Not just for votes but for their principles; if not we will risk ending up like the dems where the end justifies the means. Where truth is relative- and power is God.

OliverB on March 20, 2013 at 9:07 PM

See folks, many libertarians get it too.

Saltysam on March 20, 2013 at 9:28 PM

I’ve always voted Republican, but I’m starting to feel like an orphan.

poli-nana on March 20, 2013 at 11:35 PM

Hot Gay Air

Kensington on March 21, 2013 at 1:13 AM

I smell new Gay thread (for a change). From today’s Wall St. Journal:

A major medical group announced its support for same-sex marriage on Thursday, citing evidence suggesting that the health and well-being of the children of gay couples are better when their parents are married.

With the policy statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics, which represents 60,000 pediatricians and other pediatric specialists, has waded into a contentious social, political and legal issue. The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in two gay-marriage cases next week.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM

Of course we never see polls with civil unions as an option. If we did, the civil unions and no distinction categories would be over 50%. What is so difficult about saying we believe in traditional definition of marriage because it recognizes the importance of mothers and fathers as an ideal? Gays should be able to form their own partnerships but no one has the “right” to redefine marriage.

I really think this is where most of the country is.

monalisa on March 21, 2013 at 8:28 AM

I smell new Gay thread (for a change). From today’s Wall St. Journal:

A major medical group announced its support for same-sex marriage on Thursday, citing evidence suggesting that the health and well-being of the children of gay couples are better when their parents are married.

With the policy statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics, which represents 60,000 pediatricians and other pediatric specialists, has waded into a contentious social, political and legal issue. The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in two gay-marriage cases next week.
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM

Er, that’s the whole point, isn’t it? There are no children of gay couples because try as they may, there is no “one flesh” being produced. Whomever their children are, they don’t carry the genes from both parents. They get cheated out of half their heritage. We do know what happens to adopted children don’t we? Most of them want to know WHY their natural parent(s) gave them up and they want to know their genetic heritage.

I have been married many, many years. Perhaps those of us who believe marriage is something more than cohabitation and sex and think perhaps there’s a religious component to it should divorce according to the government who now declares that their lifestyle is disfunctional. According to gay men, women are nothing but “breeders”. I don’t know what gay women say about men. I’ve never advocated or practiced anything that could be interpreted as anti-gay. They are who they are and that’s their right. But why, please, are they set on making my children illegitimate and my marriage something to be reviled?

Portia46 on March 21, 2013 at 12:29 PM

In my opinion, the church has lost its right to exclusivity by allowing people to be married by the justice of the peace.
As long as the (each) State decides the practices/procedures/legalities for the how’s and whom’s laws are applied. Then, each State has the right to determine, through their constitutions, who has the right to be married, as well as, the fair division of property in any civil separation or divorce.

kregg on March 21, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Captain Hestilow (USA, Ret.) says, “It is really pretty simple. The Left demand the right of marriage for those in a homosexual relationship because, like a ch…ild, they don’t want anyone to tell them, ‘no.’ They hate traditional marriage because marriage was ordained by God and not man. While they worship science, biology offers no exception for homosexual behavior to be anything but deviant (Homosexual behavior is always deviant sexual behavior in nature. You may find it in nature from time to time; but, it is always a deviation from the norm. It is always abnormal–deviant. It has no function in biology.). They insist that we say that it is okay to tear down the family and destroy the nation to make believe they are ‘normal’. They are not! It is no more complicated than that. Stop saying homosexual behavior is ‘okay’! It isn’t! Not in Scripture and not in nature! Just tell them, ‘NO!’ And if the Supreme Court says it is okay, tell them ‘no!’ too! It is our country! Marriage between one man and one woman must remain the foundation of American civilization.”

Bullhead on March 24, 2013 at 7:20 PM