The economic priorities of the Republicans vs. gay marriage--no contest

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2011 8:54 PM GMT
    http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/01/11/marriage-2011/

    - NEW HAMPSHIRE: Republicans are in control of both houses and have enough votes to override a veto by Democratic Gov. John Lynch, who signed a marriage law in 2009. Conservative lawmakers could seek to pass “a repeal through the legislature, or send a constitutional amendment to voters in 2012.” At least four draft bills have already been filed, including two from Rep. David Bates (R) which would “return the marriage law to exactly what it was four years ago” “but also has a caveat so marriages performed the past year would remain legal.” Meanwhile, the Let New Hampshire Vote group is also pushing for “a constitutional amendment to take up a vote on the law in 2012.”

    - MINNESOTA: Social conservatives are pressuring Republicans to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriages in the state. On Friday, the Minnesota Family Council will host a marriage amendment course for legislators. Last week, members of the new Republican majority blocked a rules amendment “that would have made balancing Minnesota’s budget the House’s top priority this session” and made it more difficult for conservatives to purse social legislation.

    - WYOMING: State law already defines marriage as a union between a man and woman, but recognizes marriages performed in other states. Republicans are sponsoring legislation that would “prohibit Wyoming from recognizing same-sex marriages and specify that “no court in Wyoming would have jurisdiction over same-sex marriage.” Governor Matt Mead, a Republican, “campaigned on a platform that included favoring defining marriage as only between a man and a woman” and said he would consider signing such a bill into law. Rep. Cathy Connolly, a Democrat who is a lesbian and an opponent of the measure, will introduce two bills to legalize same-sex marriages and establish civil unions. The marriage bill would change existing Wyoming law’s definition of marriage from a civil contract “between a male and a female person” to a contract between “two natural persons.”
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jan 23, 2011 9:18 PM GMT
    But I could have sworn all the Tea Party rage was about the economy. It's the new year and all of a sudden it's not in vogue?

    Oh my.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2011 10:16 PM GMT
    And there are 13 states where the Tea Party (ahem) libertarian governors and legislatures are trying to restrict abortion rights even further.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2011 10:37 PM GMT
    Whereas in this month the Prez has
    1. Issued a directive to eliminate onerous regulation (even though the economic benefits outweigh the costs):
    20110122_usc016.gif
    2. Hired Jeff Immelt for "the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board to provide the president and his administration with advice and counsel in fixing America's economic downturn.[8]" (wikipedia) Much to the consternation of people who point to Immelt's policies on sending jobs abroad.
    3. Taken a hint from Hu Jintao and China about investing in clean energy and scientific research:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704754304576096171216582908.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLETopStoriesA White House official said Mr. Obama's conception of competitiveness goes beyond stripping away onerous rules and envisions stepping in where the market fails. The official said areas such as renewable energy and scientific research are underfunded by the private sector, because returns are uncertain. These areas are vital to the nation's long-term growth, the official said, and the state must step in when businesses don't. The administration is considering matching grants and other partnerships that entice private-sector participation and keep federal investment to a minimum.


    Not one word from him about social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, although his DOJ had to defend DOMA.

    To be fair, for a whole week Giffords' health was more important. But I would not be surprised that come February, nothing substantial would have been achieved economically in the House.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2011 10:54 PM GMT
    NO, THIS CAN'T BE TRUE! Before the election the Republican supporters here promised us that Republicans and their Teabagger allies were only concerned about the economy. That we were being "paranoid" for suspecting that their primary agenda was really social in nature, and anti-gay.

    "Oh, no, you liberal guys are just stupid & delusional, this is purely about the economy." I remember those very words: paranoid & delusional, don't you?

    So now the Republicans got into power, and what's the VERY first legislation they're proposing in Congress and States around the US? Why, SOCIAL legislation, not economic! How very strange!

    And what social legislation would that be? Why, anti-gay, anti-women, and anti-minority. Apparently the US economy hinges on whether women can get an abortion and gays be married.

    I mean, how can these Republican clowns on this site not hang their heads in shame, and continue to spew their right-wing propaganda? Have they no integrity, no honor, no respect for the intelligence of the rest of us here?
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Jan 23, 2011 11:22 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidNO, THIS CAN'T BE TRUE! Before the election the Republican supporters here promised us that Republicans and their Teabagger allies were only concerned about the economy. That we were being "paranoid" for suspecting that their primary agenda was really social in nature, and anti-gay.

    "Oh, no, you liberal guys are just stupid & delusional, this is purely about the economy." I remember those very words: paranoid & delusional, don't you?

    So now the Republicans got into power, and what's the VERY first legislation they're proposing in Congress and States around the US? Why, SOCIAL legislation, not economic! How very strange!

    And what social legislation would that be? Why, anti-gay, anti-women, and anti-minority. Apparently the US economy hinges on whether women can get an abortion and gays be married.

    I mean, how can these Republican clowns on this site not hang their heads in shame, and continue to spew their right-wing propaganda? Have they no integrity, no honor, no respect for the intelligence of the rest of us here?


    hmm, well the president supported the defense of marriage act. Proposing legislation is different than actually passing. And one member can propose anything.

    So members here promised you something. What was that for, so you would vote for the republicans? I seriously doubt that

    The democratic party gives lip service to the gay community ( PROMISES ALOT ), but has to be embarrassed into doing things like the log cabin republicans did in DADT case .
    They dropped the ball with Prop8, so Obama could safely win California.

    Its obvious your mind is made up.
    Im not a republican perse, but when you call someone a clown first maybe re read a few hundred newspapers of why the democrats lost the house in 2010. They did an abysmal job, most of the bills were on suspension of rules, and wasted money on a worthless stimulus.

    I am not ashamed of anything, especially in light of how you speak to people based on just proposed bills .Those bills may go nowhere. Just like the promised "equality" i have heard for years.


    Where you equally ashamed when Obama's justice department defended DOMA act in court?

    Even some conservative believe its pretty shotty legislation in its constitutionality without even discussing morality. He had cover to not defend it , but he chose to , do you ask yourself why?



    get real...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2011 11:53 PM GMT
    musclmed saidI am not ashamed of anything, especially in light of how you speak to people based on just proposed bills .Those bills may go nowhere.

    And if those bills do get passed, as looks likely in many states, will you be ashamed then? I suspect not. Let's not play games. You oppose gay rights & equality, or else you wouldn't support Republicans, who overwhelmingly support anti-gay measures, and who are actively working for them. These are very clear and obvious choices, no mystery, and you are choosing anti-gay. Democrats may have fumbled the political ball, as you say, but they aren't playing on the all anti-gay team. And they aren't proposing anti-gay measures as Republicans are.

    And please don't fall back on that tired old illogic that "not EVERY Republican opposes gays, therefore ALL Republicans get a pass." That false argument hasn't worked here for years now. The Republican Party leadership DOES all oppose gays, it IS in their national and state party platforms, and they ARE submitting these measures post-haste, within weeks of being installed in the various legislatures. I presume you do read the news?

    Yet you tell us those are just PROPOSALS, they have no significance, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Well, if the Republican Party didn't want them, why submit them and tie-up legislative time in the first place, when we all thought the first priority was the economy? You haven't answered that one, nor can you.

    MAJOR FAIL in your argument.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Jan 24, 2011 12:35 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    musclmed saidI am not ashamed of anything, especially in light of how you speak to people based on just proposed bills .Those bills may go nowhere.

    And if those bills do get passed, as looks likely in many states, will you be ashamed then? I suspect not. Let's not play games. You oppose gay rights & equality, or else you wouldn't support Republicans, who overwhelmingly support anti-gay measures, and who are actively working for them. These are very clear and obvious choices, no mystery, and you are choosing anti-gay. Democrats may have fumbled the political ball, as you say, but they aren't playing on the all anti-gay team. And they aren't proposing anti-gay measures as Republicans are.

    And please don't fall back on that tired old illogic that "not EVERY Republican opposes gays, therefore ALL Republicans get a pass." That false argument hasn't worked here for years now. The Republican Party leadership DOES all oppose gays, it IS in their national and state party platforms, and they ARE submitting these measures post-haste, within weeks of being installed in the various legislatures. I presume you do read the news?

    Yet you tell us those are just PROPOSALS, they have no significance, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Well, if the Republican Party didn't want them, why submit them and tie-up legislative time in the first place, when we all thought the first priority was the economy? You haven't answered that one, nor can you.

    MAJOR FAIL in your argument.


    Guess what, I only really half heatedly addressed your unwarranted and really off base calling out of everyone who doesnt have a D tattoed on there chest.

    You have no idea what my views are on alot of things. Nor do I feel I need to explain or discuss them with someone who is having an imaginary argument with themselves.

    Who are you to say anyone anywhere should be ashamed ? except the politicians who actually are responsible for a proposal.

    If someone aligns themselves with a political philosophy in part does that mean they have to buy the whole farm?

    Does everyone LGBT have to vote for rights, simultaneously with jackasses like Dennis Cusinich Charlie Rangel?
    Are there equally or even more important issues?

    Dont we have the power to split and leverage our vote? Should our vote for dog catcher be a democrat becuase potentially the republican is in a party thats potentially anti-gay.

    Your world view is about as enlightened, interesting and intelligent as the diorama I made in 2nd grade.



  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jan 24, 2011 1:13 AM GMT
    Musclmed,

    Before you accuse the Democratic party of only providing lip service to the gay community, I suggest you look into what they have done on a state level in regards to gay marriage.

    And how convenient of you to leave out the hospital visitation rights that went into effect a couple of days ago. Proposed by Obama last April, hospitals that receive federal aid must comply to allow patients to decide who has visitation rights and who can make medical decisions on their behalf.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2011 1:18 AM GMT
    The question that the rest of us have on our lips is:

    so when ARE they going to balance state budgets, etc?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2011 1:41 AM GMT
    TigerTim saidThe question that the rest of us have on our lips is:

    so when ARE they going to balance state budgets, etc?


    They're not going to do any of that. They never do. Instead they will reward the companies that paid for their elections and their cronies, cut taxes, deregulate whatever protections remain, throw red meat to their base (anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion), and run up further deficits all the while blaming unions and liberals. Eventually, they will be replaced by a Democrat who will be blamed for not fixing their mess in his or her first 100 days by the same people and media who ignored the irresponsibility of the Republican for 4 or 8 years.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jan 24, 2011 1:48 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    TigerTim saidThe question that the rest of us have on our lips is:

    so when ARE they going to balance state budgets, etc?


    They're not going to do any of that. They never do. Instead they will reward the companies that paid for their elections and their cronies, cut taxes, deregulate whatever protections remain, throw red meat to their base (anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion), and run up further deficits all the while blaming unions and liberals. Eventually, they will be replaced by a Democrat who will be blamed for not fixing their mess in his or her first 100 days by the same people and media who ignored the irresponsibility of the Republican for 4 or 8 years.


    And on this forum, the conservatives will suggest that these Republicans were not truly fiscally conservative. They'll promote the new wave of Republicans that promise to be different from the last batch.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Jan 24, 2011 1:56 AM GMT
    creature saidMusclmed,

    Before you accuse the Democratic party of only providing lip service to the gay community, I suggest you look into what they have done on a state level in regards to gay marriage.

    And how convenient of you to leave out the hospital visitation rights that went into effect a couple of days ago. Proposed by Obama last April, hospitals that receive federal aid must comply to allow patients to decide who has visitation rights and who can make medical decisions on their behalf.


    its only convenient because you obviously didnt read what I wrote, nor did you read what he wrote.

    what i find more troubling is the name calling here and vivid imagination of some on what my beliefs are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2011 2:23 AM GMT



    I think I love you musclemed
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jan 24, 2011 2:34 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    creature saidMusclmed,

    Before you accuse the Democratic party of only providing lip service to the gay community, I suggest you look into what they have done on a state level in regards to gay marriage.

    And how convenient of you to leave out the hospital visitation rights that went into effect a couple of days ago. Proposed by Obama last April, hospitals that receive federal aid must comply to allow patients to decide who has visitation rights and who can make medical decisions on their behalf.


    its only convenient because you obviously didnt read what I wrote, nor did you read what he wrote.

    what i find more troubling is the name calling here and vivid imagination of some on what my beliefs are.


    I read what you wrote. Did I need to quote your words for you to recall that you said the Democrats just provide lip service to the gay community.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Jan 24, 2011 3:09 AM GMT
    creature said
    musclmed said
    creature saidMusclmed,

    Before you accuse the Democratic party of only providing lip service to the gay community, I suggest you look into what they have done on a state level in regards to gay marriage.

    And how convenient of you to leave out the hospital visitation rights that went into effect a couple of days ago. Proposed by Obama last April, hospitals that receive federal aid must comply to allow patients to decide who has visitation rights and who can make medical decisions on their behalf.


    its only convenient because you obviously didnt read what I wrote, nor did you read what he wrote.

    what i find more troubling is the name calling here and vivid imagination of some on what my beliefs are.


    I read what you wrote. Did I need to quote your words for you to recall that you said the Democrats just provide lip service to the gay community.


    Obama could have campaigned against prop 8 in california. He didnt.

    That energy behind him brought out a big African American vote, that largely voted AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE. and for prop 8.

    Obama in the 11th hour got DADT repealed, from my view, it was only in fear of the embarrassment of a Log Cabin Republican DADT court case going in parallel( by the way the justice department was supporting DADT) Obama / Eric Holder run the justice department. Why not just concede the case and let it be overturned?

    http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Politicians/Gays_vs_Democratic_Party/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/prop-8-ruling-exposes-dem_n_671900.html

    at least from my vantage point, it doesnt seem that the democratic party has it "locked tight" . Some may call them the lesser of two evils.

    In that case as I have done, I evaluate any money or support I give to anyone. Because the debate about this topic isnt "over" as some would say. Its a daily fight.

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/10/24/gay_voters_angry_at_democrats_could_sway_election/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2011 4:24 PM GMT
    creature said
    Christian73 said
    TigerTim saidThe question that the rest of us have on our lips is:

    so when ARE they going to balance state budgets, etc?


    They're not going to do any of that. They never do. Instead they will reward the companies that paid for their elections and their cronies, cut taxes, deregulate whatever protections remain, throw red meat to their base (anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion), and run up further deficits all the while blaming unions and liberals. Eventually, they will be replaced by a Democrat who will be blamed for not fixing their mess in his or her first 100 days by the same people and media who ignored the irresponsibility of the Republican for 4 or 8 years.


    And on this forum, the conservatives will suggest that these Republicans were not truly fiscally conservative. They'll promote the new wave of Republicans that promise to be different from the last batch.


    Sounds like politics in general -- regardless of party.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2011 4:27 PM GMT
    Mock, I thought you said once in they were going to address fiscal and not social? Hmmm?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2011 5:06 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    creature saidI read what you wrote. Did I need to quote your words for you to recall that you said the Democrats just provide lip service to the gay community.


    Where's your federally recognized gay marriage?

    Democrats completely controlled the government for the past 2 years.

    Oh yeah... they were working on more important economic issues.... and healthcare "reform." icon_rolleyes.gif


    Oh sure. I'm positive that the Republicans in the Senate wouldn't have filibustered that as they did every single Democratic bill for two years.

    Where's the push for gay rights from the Tea Party? After all, they're only economic conservatives. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2011 9:21 PM GMT
    The anti-gay/anti-abortion moves are nothing more than red meat for the masses.

    I highly doubt much will come of it, since it would have to pass a liberal held senate and be signed by a liberal POTUS.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2011 9:32 PM GMT
    alphatrigger saidThe anti-gay/anti-abortion moves are nothing more than red meat for the masses.

    I highly doubt much will come of it, since it would have to pass a liberal held senate and be signed by a liberal POTUS.


    No. These are state-wide measures and restrictions on abortion have been very successful over the last 10-15 years. In fact, there are many states where you can no longer obtain an abortion because the restrictions and constant threat of violence from pro-life activists make it untenable for doctors to practice.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jan 25, 2011 7:40 PM GMT
    The haters and homophobes, who make up 100% of the Teabagger Republicans, have spoken.
    Jobs ? They're not concerned about jobs. They have jobs.

    It's much more urgent that they turn America into their vision of Jesusland. After all, jesus tallks to only them, all the time, and tells them exactly what they should do. It's just a coincidence that what he tells them to do, exactly coincides with the beliefs and goals that they already have.

    Praise the lard...