GOP strategist: Iowa Republicans should come out for gay marriage
In private meetings with GOP elected officials and operatives from across the state, Ken Mehlman, who was chairman of the Republican National Committee from 2005 to 2007 and managed George W. Bush’s re-election campaign, has been urging party leaders to recognize the evolution in thinking and demographic shifts in Iowa and the nation.
“Republicans have an opportunity to both stand up for values that are core to our philosophy — freedom, family values and the golden rule — and to do the right thing politically by allowing adults who love one another to have access to civil marriage,” Mehlman said in an interview with The Des Moines Register. ..
Mehlman, who came out as gay in 2010, doesn’t go as far as saying Republicans will lose future elections if they continue to crusade against same-sex marriage. …
But it’s indisputable that 53 percent of Americans support the freedom to marry for same-sex couples, he said.
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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
I’m begging people not to make me their sexual confidant no matter which team the play for.
Cindy Munford on January 29, 2013 at 11:57 AM
And I’m begging for churches not to be threatened for preaching against perversion and individuals not to be sued for refusing to cater to perverts. Like is already happening in Canada.
MelonCollie on January 29, 2013 at 11:58 AM
If being anti gay marriage is so toxic to the general electorate then why is it only less than a year ago that Obama publicly came out in favor of gay marriage?
gwelf on January 29, 2013 at 12:00 PM
thuja, why do you always avoid answering (and your meaningless response was incredibly stupid)? Can I confirm that you support True Marriage Equality, or are you still too bigoted to do so?
blink on January 29, 2013 at 12:03 PM
OK, JetBoy, put your money where your mouth is.
Are you intellectually honest enough to support True Marriage Equality?
In the past, you’ve stated that you don’t support it. I’d like to know why, and please provide an intellectually honest answer.
blink on January 29, 2013 at 12:06 PM
No.
kingsjester on January 29, 2013 at 12:06 PM
thirtyandseven, can you be counted on to support True Marriage Equality?
blink on January 29, 2013 at 12:07 PM
I weeped not for the South and it’s racial policies; I shall not do the same for you either.
ZachV on January 29, 2013 at 12:16 PM
What next? Give me all your money or you’re a homophobe!!!! Have gay sex all day or you’re a homophobe!!!
John the Libertarian on January 29, 2013 at 12:18 PM
ZachV on January 29, 2013 at 12:16 PM
Homosexuality is not a race. It’s a sexual preference.
kingsjester on January 29, 2013 at 12:20 PM
Haha, no. I wanted to give the social conservative beehive a good thwack. Obviously each is free to live his or her life as she chooses, but trying as they might, establishing a socon theocratic order by legislating the Bible and turning the President into the Papacy is no friend of liberty.
ZachV on January 29, 2013 at 12:24 PM
well i’m not in iowa. =D
Sachiko on January 29, 2013 at 12:25 PM
I’m surprised that it took this long for the racist comparison appeared.
Do you weep at all for the loss of religious freedom? Or do you agree that Catholic adoption services should be shut down completely?
I wasn’t until the late 90′s or early 2000′s when the gay community generally valued marriage at all. Before then it considered the institution of marriage a bourgeois and outdated artifact that had no meaning or relevance to gay people. Was there ever a time that blacks considered slavery or Jim Crow to be acceptable?
gwelf on January 29, 2013 at 12:33 PM
Live life as you choose?
So you don’t support the gay mafia in getting Chik-fil-a business licenses denied?
Or religious institutions being forced to shut their doors for not wanting to arrange adoptions for gay couples?
gwelf on January 29, 2013 at 12:36 PM
Agreed.
John the Libertarian on January 29, 2013 at 12:36 PM
The paranoid libertarian is overreacting (as most anti-chirstian libertarians do). Let me make something clear, the socon position on marriage is thus: MARRIAGE IS A CHURCH INSTITUTION! What the gay-lobby (the leadership in specific) want is to impose government force for said churches to accept their marriage as though there is no difference. I suggest you rethink your assumptions before posting about this topic.
nobar on January 29, 2013 at 12:36 PM
Oh, but an atheistic order based on the post-modern rejection of objective morality is?
tommyboy on January 29, 2013 at 12:37 PM
What, that gives the faithful the right to discriminate? Nope. Sorry. Not in our country. No one has the right to treat an individual with prejudice.
What’s more – the greatest thing about faith is that it is not based in knowable fact, empirical evidence or proof. It actually defined as such in the dictionary and Bible.
And as such, ‘faith’ with no basis in evidence or fact, can summarily be dismissed without evidence or fact. That’s what we call the embrace of reason.
The implications? The faithful not only have no whimsical right to discriminate against any individual, but they BEYOND DOUBT have no right to discriminate on the basis a belief system that defines itself on the absence of evidence, fact or proof.
ZachV on January 29, 2013 at 12:43 PM
Good riddance…
JohnGalt23 on January 29, 2013 at 12:44 PM
ZachV, so you’re a bigot AND a hypocrite. I shall not weep for you or your bigoted silence on True Marriage Equality.
blink on January 29, 2013 at 12:45 PM
A gay guy comes out in favor of the further embrace of homosexuality and this is news? Hold page one! Dog Bites Man
Mason on January 29, 2013 at 12:46 PM
Man, I’m getting riled up today. This is why I should stick to fiscal responsibility, strong national defense and how dumb liberal are.
ZachV on January 29, 2013 at 12:47 PM
Tell that to the residents of any State Prison. Besides, individuals are treated with prejudice every time one person is chosen over another for any reason in any walk of life.
tommyboy on January 29, 2013 at 12:51 PM
That’s just crazy talk. I have every right not to associate with you if I don’t want to. And I have every right to use what ever criteria I so choose. Just like liberals boycotting conservatives because they are discriminating against conservatives. You are not protected because you are a poof. I can and will make fun of you for that if I want.
Flange on January 29, 2013 at 12:52 PM
This clearly isn’t true, and this makes it clear that you aren’t very bright.
When a convict is sent to prison, he is an individual that has been treated with prejudice. When a blind woman is denied a school bus driver job, she is treated with prejudice.
But if you truly don’t believe that an individuals shouldn’t be treated with prejudice, then WHY won’t you support True Marriage Equality? Is it because you hate certain types of people?
blink on January 29, 2013 at 12:52 PM
Feel free to provide the evidence, fact, or proof that is the basis for your discrimination. Since you are in favor of forcing others to conform to YOUR moral standards (instead of others), then please tell us why YOUR moral standards are superior to others.
blink on January 29, 2013 at 12:54 PM
You don’t have a clue what you are talking about. The bible specifically states that theism is an objective, empirical, quantifiable fact. Romans 1:19-21
tommyboy on January 29, 2013 at 12:56 PM
Are you riled up enough to finally start supporting True Marriage Equality, or are you going to choose to remain a bigot today?
blink on January 29, 2013 at 12:56 PM
ZachV on January 29, 2013 at 12:43 PM
Quite possibly the most idiotic posting ever logged into this website.
So you were THERE in the Time of Christ?? And that is HOW you
determined it is “not based in knowable fact”??
This is what your entire post is built upon??
Yet another “whimsical” idiot setting us rubes straight!!
Another Magnum of Chloraform awaits you..enjoy.
ToddPA on January 29, 2013 at 12:56 PM
Boy did I call it right. Anti-chrisitian bigot.
To address your points:
1: No society is without prejudice. If you believe there is one, then you are insane.
2: “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.” – Stuart Chase.
3: Why is it that those who “embrace reason” are prejudiced against faithful? Please answer.
nobar on January 29, 2013 at 1:00 PM
Not sure you can even manage that champ.
tom daschle concerned on January 29, 2013 at 1:10 PM
Because he’s a closed minded bigot.
And because the majority of African Americans are religious that makes him racist as well.
Skywise on January 29, 2013 at 1:14 PM
The issue here is not church marriage, but civil marriage. I defy you to find a statement from the leader of any gay rights group advocating for churches to be forced to perform gay marriages. You won’t find one, because such a law would be struck down in short order as a violation of the 1st Amendment.
cam2 on January 29, 2013 at 1:17 PM
Getting riled up by progressive super-state boilerplate arguments like this?:
gwelf on January 29, 2013 at 1:20 PM
I would think John 14:6 makes more sense as a reply to someone like me. Why chose 17:17?
thuja on January 29, 2013 at 1:21 PM
I don’t think he’s a leader but a rank-n-file member does:
gwelf on January 29, 2013 at 1:25 PM
You cited John 18:38 wherein Pilate asks “What is truth”. I gave you the verse where Jesus answers that question.
tommyboy on January 29, 2013 at 1:25 PM
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!
thuja on January 29, 2013 at 1:26 PM
Also, we don’t want to rile up the social cons too much. We are in alliance with them for 2016. At this point, I don’t care if the GOP candidate is Rick Santorum, we’ve got to the economy fixed as soon as possible.
thuja on January 29, 2013 at 1:31 PM
No. Let’s be clear here. The only reason for government to be involved in a couples interpersonal sexual relationship is for child rearing. The government sort of needs people to perpetuate itself. With marriage stripped of they meaning government has no purpose in dictating or licensing “state approved” relationships.
What you are seeing is social indoctrination and has nothing to do with liberty.
Skywise on January 29, 2013 at 1:35 PM
thuja, this reply is just as stupid as your first reply to my question.
Do you support True Marriage Equality, or should I keep you on my list as a bigot today?
Last chance to answer.
blink on January 29, 2013 at 1:36 PM
thuja, you ARE a social con! Only a social con would refuse to support the right for everyone to marry.
blink on January 29, 2013 at 1:38 PM
Lucky for you this is America and not Canada. Here we have a First Amendment that SCOTUS recently ruled by an 8-1 margin protect the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to say what they say about gay people. So if that’s really what you’re worried about then you have nothing to worry about!
alchemist19 on January 29, 2013 at 1:39 PM
Proof that you’re a social con. I ask you a question about supporting everyone’s rights, and you throw the bible at me.
Good grief.
blink on January 29, 2013 at 1:40 PM
In all fairness, I think he was directing that post to me, not you. He was citing my post.
tommyboy on January 29, 2013 at 1:45 PM
reprobates are so funny when they quote scripture
to make their point.thereby confessing their ignorance.tom daschle concerned on January 29, 2013 at 1:46 PM
I really loathe the trendy insecure atheist. I lost my religion in high school back when there were real consequences for not joining in with the popular trend. The football players of the FCA loved me. That being said, after getting over my childish need to feel superior I came to embrace most of what Christians created in this country even if I don’t believe their religion.
Unfortunately you have a whole generation of insecure atheist tools like thuja and ZachV who have no inherit personal attributes that allows them to stand out from the crowd so their only recourse is to denigrate another group to feel superior. Just lame trendy fvcks.
ClassicCon on January 29, 2013 at 1:49 PM
We are better off than other western democracies but not by much.
There was also a fairly recent case where a parish was sued because they didn’t want to employ someone who didn’t share their religious convictions. SCOTUS decided unanimously that a church could indeed discriminate on religious grounds in hiring decisions.
However, until the progressives get enough justices on the bench who can clearly see the penumbras and emanations, they will use the massive federal bureaucracy to enforce the liberal agenda. They are already forcing private institutions – including churches – to directly subsidize things that go against their will and religious beliefs. The bureaucrats will eventually find a way to weasel in more compliance with the progressive world-view as a condition of operating.
gwelf on January 29, 2013 at 1:51 PM
He offered that part of the bible to ME as his first reply. Check on the first page if you don’t remember.
blink on January 29, 2013 at 1:52 PM
The last two sentences in the “Truth in Philosophy” by Barry Allen:
thuja on January 29, 2013 at 2:00 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »