Rob Portman Supports Gay Marriage.
-
No shit you don't care about an issue that doesn't affect you or anyone close to you.
You guys have made the "why does this even matter" argument before.
Just because something doesn't affect YOU doesn't mean its a worthless and pointless issue.
Anyone who takes the time to think about any of these issues prioritizes them, I would assume.
WSS
Anyone who takes the time to think about any of these issues prioritizes them, I would assume.
WSS
We have a winner.
Much easier to label me a bigot though.
#GoodJobGoodEffort
Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck. -Don Shula -
Actually, Leg, I didn't think it was one of your better posts. You could, after all, extend your reasoning to not discuss just any other issue you could think of. But it doesn't logically hold that because problem A exists therefore we have no time for problem B. Unless that issue is, you know, a giant asteroid is going to hit the earth tomorrow.
The fact that we have a federal deficit is not a reason to imagine that we can't address any other issue that you may think is less urgent than the federal deficit. You've got to walk and chew gum at the same time. As you know, for millions of Americans, the issue of gay marriage is immediately relevant to their lives.
But it's also already won. It really has been. It's got majority support in the country. It's got 80% support in people under 30. As George Will noted this weekend, support for traditional marriage only is literally dying off.
-
Anyone who takes the time to think about any of these issues prioritizes them, I would assume.
WSS
We have a winner.
Much easier to label me a bigot though.
#GoodJobGoodEffort
We have a winner.
Much easier to label me a bigot though.
#GoodJobGoodEffort
When did I do that?
-
The Republican National Committee’s support of Senator Rob Portman’s flip on gay marriage has infuriated social conservatives.
Though they don’t doubt that RNC chairman Reince Priebus is on their side, some say his vocal praise on Monday of Portman’s new stance could alienate values voters.
“I think [the RNC] should pretty much ignore him,” says Phyllis Schlafly, a longtime conservative activist, in an interview with National Review Online. “I think he has made a mistake, and he probably won’t get reelected.”
Ralph Reed, the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, says the party has to be careful. “If the Republican party tries to retreat from being a pro-marriage, pro-family party, the big tent is going to become a pup tent very fast,” he says. “I am concerned that some in the party are going wobbly on this issue.”
A source familiar with Ohioans’ response to Portman’s decision tells NRO that 60 percent of the calls the office received were against Portman’s shift and 40 percent of calls received were in support.
Schlafly, for her part, isn’t impressed. “Portman was one of their stars when he won, and he was supposed to be so very smart,” she says, “and I find it hard to believe the stupidity of his statement.”
Other social conservatives share her ire. Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, says Portman will likely face a primary challenger. “He will have a primary because this is too critical of an issue for a Republican senator to abandon,” he says.
Brown also thinks the RNC has “definitely” been too soft on Portman. “This is a critical issue, and to act like it’s just no big deal is just wrong,” he says.
Brown believes the RNC should withhold financial support from Portman and any other senators who change their views to support gay marriage.“The grassroots of the party are 100 percent committed to protecting marriage, to protecting life, the whole platform,” he says, “and you can’t just kick them to the curb.”
Gary Bauer, a former Republican presidential candidate and the head of American Values, agrees. He says the party’s leadership is taking its Evangelical base for granted — and that that’s a big mistake.
“I just think right now there is a lot of concern in the party about both satisfying the money wing of the party and keeping libertarians on board and I believe they are clueless to how close the party is to losing the energy and the votes of its largest voting bloc, which are values conservatives,” Bauer says.
“What we shouldn’t do is say to the electorate, ‘Just tell us what you want us to be! We’ll change for you! Just tell us what you want us to do, we’ll do it!’” he adds. “That’s not a political party, that’s just a bunch of pandering idiots.”
-
The Republican National Committee’s support of Senator Rob Portman’s flip on gay marriage has infuriated social conservatives.
Though they don’t doubt that RNC chairman Reince Priebus is on their side, some say his vocal praise on Monday of Portman’s new stance could alienate values voters.
“I think [the RNC] should pretty much ignore him,” says Phyllis Schlafly, a longtime conservative activist, in an interview with National Review Online. “I think he has made a mistake, and he probably won’t get reelected.”
Ralph Reed, the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, says the party has to be careful. “If the Republican party tries to retreat from being a pro-marriage, pro-family party, the big tent is going to become a pup tent very fast,” he says. “I am concerned that some in the party are going wobbly on this issue.”
A source familiar with Ohioans’ response to Portman’s decision tells NRO that 60 percent of the calls the office received were against Portman’s shift and 40 percent of calls received were in support.
Schlafly, for her part, isn’t impressed. “Portman was one of their stars when he won, and he was supposed to be so very smart,” she says, “and I find it hard to believe the stupidity of his statement.”
Other social conservatives share her ire. Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, says Portman will likely face a primary challenger. “He will have a primary because this is too critical of an issue for a Republican senator to abandon,” he says.
Brown also thinks the RNC has “definitely” been too soft on Portman. “This is a critical issue, and to act like it’s just no big deal is just wrong,” he says.
Brown believes the RNC should withhold financial support from Portman and any other senators who change their views to support gay marriage.“The grassroots of the party are 100 percent committed to protecting marriage, to protecting life, the whole platform,” he says, “and you can’t just kick them to the curb.”
Gary Bauer, a former Republican presidential candidate and the head of American Values, agrees. He says the party’s leadership is taking its Evangelical base for granted — and that that’s a big mistake.
“I just think right now there is a lot of concern in the party about both satisfying the money wing of the party and keeping libertarians on board and I believe they are clueless to how close the party is to losing the energy and the votes of its largest voting bloc, which are values conservatives,” Bauer says.
“What we shouldn’t do is say to the electorate, ‘Just tell us what you want us to be! We’ll change for you! Just tell us what you want us to do, we’ll do it!’” he adds. “That’s not a political party, that’s just a bunch of pandering idiots.”
The Republican National Committee’s support of Senator Rob Portman’s flip on gay marriage has infuriated social conservatives.
Though they don’t doubt that RNC chairman Reince Priebus is on their side, some say his vocal praise on Monday of Portman’s new stance could alienate values voters.
“I think [the RNC] should pretty much ignore him,” says Phyllis Schlafly, a longtime conservative activist, in an interview with National Review Online. “I think he has made a mistake, and he probably won’t get reelected.”
Ralph Reed, the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, says the party has to be careful. “If the Republican party tries to retreat from being a pro-marriage, pro-family party, the big tent is going to become a pup tent very fast,” he says. “I am concerned that some in the party are going wobbly on this issue.”
A source familiar with Ohioans’ response to Portman’s decision tells NRO that 60 percent of the calls the office received were against Portman’s shift and 40 percent of calls received were in support.
Schlafly, for her part, isn’t impressed. “Portman was one of their stars when he won, and he was supposed to be so very smart,” she says, “and I find it hard to believe the stupidity of his statement.”
Other social conservatives share her ire. Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, says Portman will likely face a primary challenger. “He will have a primary because this is too critical of an issue for a Republican senator to abandon,” he says.
Brown also thinks the RNC has “definitely” been too soft on Portman. “This is a critical issue, and to act like it’s just no big deal is just wrong,” he says.
Brown believes the RNC should withhold financial support from Portman and any other senators who change their views to support gay marriage.“The grassroots of the party are 100 percent committed to protecting marriage, to protecting life, the whole platform,” he says, “and you can’t just kick them to the curb.”
Gary Bauer, a former Republican presidential candidate and the head of American Values, agrees. He says the party’s leadership is taking its Evangelical base for granted — and that that’s a big mistake.
“I just think right now there is a lot of concern in the party about both satisfying the money wing of the party and keeping libertarians on board and I believe they are clueless to how close the party is to losing the energy and the votes of its largest voting bloc, which are values conservatives,” Bauer says.
“What we shouldn’t do is say to the electorate, ‘Just tell us what you want us to be! We’ll change for you! Just tell us what you want us to do, we’ll do it!’” he adds. “That’s not a political party, that’s just a bunch of pandering idiots.”
ditch them its not like they are going to vote for the other team like the indipendants might. quit letting one side of your party keep pulling you away from the rest. If R's were to lose the Christian morality bs I would vote them more often.
-
The Republican National Committee’s support of Senator Rob Portman’s flip on gay marriage has infuriated social conservatives.
Though they don’t doubt that RNC chairman Reince Priebus is on their side, some say his vocal praise on Monday of Portman’s new stance could alienate values voters.
“I think [the RNC] should pretty much ignore him,” says Phyllis Schlafly, a longtime conservative activist, in an interview with National Review Online. “I think he has made a mistake, and he probably won’t get reelected.”
Ralph Reed, the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, says the party has to be careful. “If the Republican party tries to retreat from being a pro-marriage, pro-family party, the big tent is going to become a pup tent very fast,” he says. “I am concerned that some in the party are going wobbly on this issue.”
A source familiar with Ohioans’ response to Portman’s decision tells NRO that 60 percent of the calls the office received were against Portman’s shift and 40 percent of calls received were in support.
Schlafly, for her part, isn’t impressed. “Portman was one of their stars when he won, and he was supposed to be so very smart,” she says, “and I find it hard to believe the stupidity of his statement.”
Other social conservatives share her ire. Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, says Portman will likely face a primary challenger. “He will have a primary because this is too critical of an issue for a Republican senator to abandon,” he says.
Brown also thinks the RNC has “definitely” been too soft on Portman. “This is a critical issue, and to act like it’s just no big deal is just wrong,” he says.
Brown believes the RNC should withhold financial support from Portman and any other senators who change their views to support gay marriage.“The grassroots of the party are 100 percent committed to protecting marriage, to protecting life, the whole platform,” he says, “and you can’t just kick them to the curb.”
Gary Bauer, a former Republican presidential candidate and the head of American Values, agrees. He says the party’s leadership is taking its Evangelical base for granted — and that that’s a big mistake.
“I just think right now there is a lot of concern in the party about both satisfying the money wing of the party and keeping libertarians on board and I believe they are clueless to how close the party is to losing the energy and the votes of its largest voting bloc, which are values conservatives,” Bauer says.
“What we shouldn’t do is say to the electorate, ‘Just tell us what you want us to be! We’ll change for you! Just tell us what you want us to do, we’ll do it!’” he adds. “That’s not a political party, that’s just a bunch of pandering idiots.”
ditch them its not like they are going to vote for the other team like the indipendants might. quit letting one side of your party keep pulling you away from the rest. If R's were to lose the Christian morality bs I would vote them more often.
-
Why?
WSS
I and many independents feel religion should have little influence on American politics. so for me the R party catering to a religious portion of their base is costing them more then they gain. you lose votes that could be swayed to the other side and you alienate anyone who is not religious. whereas if you leave the religious right behind they are not going to suddenly vote for the other team. seems like the sensible thing to do.
-
Here's the problem they're going to have.
Support for same-sex marriage rights, by party:
Democrats: 66 percent
Independents: 54 percent
Republicans: 26 percent
And here it is nationally, at 58%.
Among people under 30, it's 80% approval. We're already arriving at the day when this is not a tenable position for a national politician to hold. People like Marco Rubio are going to have "evolve" on the subject. Which isn't that hard. But, it's also a lot easier to do when you have a history of support gay issues beyond marriage. Republicans generally don't support those causes either. But Rubio has until 2016 to shift and he probably will. The polls on this are simply moving too fast.
In other words, everyone always assumed Obama and Hillary weren't never really against gay marriage privately, but had to be publicly in order to win national office. Now that the numbers have changed, they've felt like they could publicly shift as well.
All politicians will soon make the same decision. Conservatives are just slower to come around on this stuff historically.
-
@heckofajobbrownie said:
But it's also already won. It really has been. It's got majority support in the country. It's got 80% support in people under 30. As George Will noted this weekend, support for traditional marriage only is literally dying off.
This is where I'm at. Not the "inability to walk and chew gum at the same time" tack.
Virginia still has laws against BJs. Not really on the radar for most folks. Lets get on with it.
The SC is revisiting the "Silly name marriage act" of 2005/6 yes? They'll fix it - then it's up to the states.
-
@heckofajobbrownie said:
But it's also already won. It really has been. It's got majority support in the country. It's got 80% support in people under 30. As George Will noted this weekend, support for traditional marriage only is literally dying off.
This is where I'm at. Not the "inability to walk and chew gum at the same time" tack.
Virginia still has laws against BJs. Not really on the radar for most folks. Lets get on with it.
The SC is revisiting the "Silly name marriage act" of 2005/6 yes? They'll fix it - then it's up to the states.
Virginia still has laws against BJs. Not really on the radar for most folks. Lets get on with it.
You should be able to tell the difference between a BJ law that isn't ever enforced and a defense of traditional marriage law that actually affects people.
-
Why?
WSS
I and many independents feel religion should have little influence on American politics. so for me the R party catering to a religious portion of their base is costing them more then they gain. you lose votes that could be swayed to the other side and you alienate anyone who is not religious. whereas if you leave the religious right behind they are not going to suddenly vote for the other team. seems like the sensible thing to do.
I and many independents feel religion should have little influence on American politics. so for me the R party catering to a religious portion of their base is costing them more then they gain. you lose votes that could be swayed to the other side and you alienate anyone who is not religious. whereas if you leave the religious right behind they are not going to suddenly vote for the other team. seems like the sensible thing to do.
Actually if an anti religion plank is the most important part of a platform to you I think that's how you should vote.
But like it was just said, I, and many others might consider the looming financial disaster more important than gay marriage.
Even though I'm a supporter.
Also as it has been pointed out that looks like it's a shoo in, a done deal.
But let's not be naive, the reason that some want it elevated to the same important as the budget is because they need to keep the base in line.
And the national debt debate isn't really a winner for the left. Or it shouldn't be.
I'd also bet that there are some people who think the banning of large soft drink cups is an important issue.
WSS
-
Well if all these fat ass Americans have no self control and cost everyone else...
But no its a dumb ban. Its sad its coming to that
-
Well if all these fat ass Americans have no self control and cost everyone else...
But no its a dumb ban. Its sad its coming to that
Well if all these fat ass Americans have no self control and cost everyone else...
But no its a dumb ban. Its sad its coming to that
Uh, I only mentioned it because some issues are more important than others...
I just couldn't think of another 1 less interesting or vital than the soda pop ban...
WSS
-
I and many independents feel religion should have little influence on American politics. so for me the R party catering to a religious portion of their base is costing them more then they gain. you lose votes that could be swayed to the other side and you alienate anyone who is not religious. whereas if you leave the religious right behind they are not going to suddenly vote for the other team. seems like the sensible thing to do.
Actually if an anti religion plank is the most important part of a platform to you I think that's how you should vote.
But like it was just said, I, and many others might consider the looming financial disaster more important than gay marriage.
Even though I'm a supporter.
Also as it has been pointed out that looks like it's a shoo in, a done deal.
But let's not be naive, the reason that some want it elevated to the same important as the budget is because they need to keep the base in line.
And the national debt debate isn't really a winner for the left. Or it shouldn't be.
I'd also bet that there are some people who think the banning of large soft drink cups is an important issue.
WSS
Actually if an anti religion plank is the most important part of a platform to you I think that's how you should vote.
But like it was just said, I, and many others might consider the looming financial disaster more important than gay marriage.
Even though I'm a supporter.
Also as it has been pointed out that looks like it's a shoo in, a done deal.
But let's not be naive, the reason that some want it elevated to the same important as the budget is because they need to keep the base in line.
And the national debt debate isn't really a winner for the left. Or it shouldn't be.
I'd also bet that there are some people who think the banning of large soft drink cups is an important issue.
WSS
I'm not anti religion I just feel that by following the religious hard line they lose more than they would gain. All you have to do as an R is be better at the economy than the D's and neutral on all the religious issues and the party becomes infinitely more palatable.
-
http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/305b-federal-spending-not-down-first-5-months-fy13
The govt has spent 30.5 billion more in the first 5 mos of fisc2013 than the same time of fisc2012.
So this gay marriage issue: ZZZzzzz
No shit you don't care about an issue that doesn't affect you or anyone close to you.
You guys have made the "why does this even matter" argument before.
Just because something doesn't affect YOU doesn't mean its a worthless and pointless issue.
No shit you don't care about an issue that doesn't affect you or anyone close to you.
You guys have made the "why does this even matter" argument before.
Just because something doesn't affect YOU doesn't mean its a worthless and pointless issue.
Not to say its unimportant, but doesn't an issue that affects the entire population and the rest of the world (our economy) trump an issue that affects approximately 10% (I've heard 1/10 are gay so I'm using that) of the United States population? Get your priorities straight.
Who honestly gives a fuck? Let them marry, but fix the economy and get "president" obama out of office first. Priorities.
-
No shit you don't care about an issue that doesn't affect you or anyone close to you.
You guys have made the "why does this even matter" argument before.
Just because something doesn't affect YOU doesn't mean its a worthless and pointless issue.
Not to say its unimportant, but doesn't an issue that affects the entire population and the rest of the world (our economy) trump an issue that affects approximately 10% (I've heard 1/10 are gay so I'm using that) of the United States population? Get your priorities straight.
Who honestly gives a fuck? Let them marry, but fix the economy and get "president" obama out of office first. Priorities.
Not to say its unimportant, but doesn't an issue that affects the entire population and the rest of the world (our economy) trump an issue that affects approximately 10% (I've heard 1/10 are gay so I'm using that) of the United States population? Get your priorities straight.
Who honestly gives a fuck? Let them marry, but fix the economy and get "president" obama out of office first. Priorities.
Well if you are one of the 10% I imagine it sucks pretty hard. Remove married filing joint, change it to filing joint, set up the parameters to identify what is needed to file joint, and remove marriage from the legal books. let the people have their religious or non-religious unions as they see fit. its in the middle as far as both sides are concerned and there is no stepping on someones toes.
-
I can't help anyone super polarized in politics. You know, hating the other side and throwing insults simply because they are on the other side...
Why are we only allowed to work on one thing at a time? We have plenty of resources to tackle more than one issue at once
As far as getting Obama out... your side lost bro, get over it. You have 3 more years. And if the Reps go super hard right social conservative the whole time... then get ready for another 4 of a guy I'm sure you'll hate too...
-
It's not one in ten. That was always propaganda. Recently they actually got a pretty good handle on what the number is, and it's about 2.5%-3.0% of the population is gay. So, about the same number that is Jewish.
But, I'm not gay and it's a very important issue to me. I almost certainly wouldn't vote for someone who is rabidly anti-gay, or even moderately anti-gay. I really don't understand the argument that since there are other important issues we shouldn't discuss or address the lack of civil rights for a certain category of our fellow Americans.
It's a big deal to a lot of people. As Rob Portman just found out. You might even say it goes to the whole notion of "the pursuit of happiness." Also "equal protection" and "freedom." I think I remember reading about those somewhere.
-
Actually if an anti religion plank is the most important part of a platform to you I think that's how you should vote.
But like it was just said, I, and many others might consider the looming financial disaster more important than gay marriage.
Even though I'm a supporter.
Also as it has been pointed out that looks like it's a shoo in, a done deal.
But let's not be naive, the reason that some want it elevated to the same important as the budget is because they need to keep the base in line.
And the national debt debate isn't really a winner for the left. Or it shouldn't be.
I'd also bet that there are some people who think the banning of large soft drink cups is an important issue.
WSS
I'm not anti religion I just feel that by following the religious hard line they lose more than they would gain. All you have to do as an R is be better at the economy than the D's and neutral on all the religious issues and the party becomes infinitely more palatable.
I'm not anti religion I just feel that by following the religious hard line they lose more than they would gain. All you have to do as an R is be better at the economy than the D's and neutral on all the religious issues and the party becomes infinitely more palatable.
Don't misunderstand, I completely get your rationale.
Personally I'm pretty open minded on all of these social issues.
But since gay marriage and abortion and all of that crap is going to take care of itself anyway no matter who is president I vote on the issues I think 1 party or the other could change.
I mean seriously, we're not going to get a constitutional amendment no matter who's in the White House.
I also don't care if a kid wants to say a prayer at a school function.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login