Three GOP Presidential Candidates Sign Pledge To Investigate LGBT Community

  • metta

    Posts: 39155

    Aug 16, 2011 9:51 PM GMT
    Three GOP Presidential Candidates Sign Pledge To Investigate LGBT Community

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/08/16/three-gop-presidential-candidates-sign-pledge-to-investigate-lgbt-community/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 10:15 PM GMT
    Just as I said last year: They give us more rights and create an environment conducive to coming out of the closet...then once more people are open about their sexuality, they close the doors on us and make being gay illegal again.

    You watch...it's gonna be the fucking holocaust all over again. That's the primary reason I've went back into the closet, and I encourage others to do so as well.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Aug 16, 2011 10:20 PM GMT
    Mitt Romney signed that pledge? Color me surprised. First the marriage pledge and now this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 10:28 PM GMT
    the pledge is stupid. Those protections already exist. They can sign on or not sign on. Those rights are constitutionally protected.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 10:30 PM GMT
    Dallasfan824 saidthe pledge is stupid. Those protections already exist. They can sign on or not sign on. Those rights are constitutionally protected.
    Like GWB said: "It's just a goddamn piece of paper."
    Nothing is protected by the constitution. If they want to change it, they can. That's what amendments are for.
  • Abe13

    Posts: 155

    Aug 16, 2011 10:32 PM GMT
    Mitt Romney's an idiot. I lean right and truly cant stand him.
    I wonder at the wording of that pledge. By stating religion in it they cross the line of separation of church and state. But it almost sounds like they might be defending free speech. But I need to read the whole thing to know for sure.
    Odd that this pledge isnt getting more media time. This is the first I've heard of it.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Aug 16, 2011 10:33 PM GMT
    Dallasfan824 saidthe pledge is stupid. Those protections already exist. They can sign on or not sign on. Those rights are constitutionally protected.


    But the thing is, they feel those rights are routinely being violated. In most cases, it probably isn't so. What they likely want is an infringement on rights of those who speak out against their rhetoric.
  • Koaa2

    Posts: 1556

    Aug 16, 2011 10:34 PM GMT
    This is why anyone who is or supports the Republican party should be labled a traitor to gay people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 10:37 PM GMT
    paulflexes said
    Dallasfan824 saidthe pledge is stupid. Those protections already exist. They can sign on or not sign on. Those rights are constitutionally protected.
    Like GWB said: "It's just a goddamn piece of paper."
    Nothing is protected by the constitution. If they want to change it, they can. That's what amendments are for.


    Its not just a piece of paper. When was the last time an amendment was passed? It takes 2/3 of congress and the states to get done. That is no easy task and people do not have the stomach for changing it. The last meaningful ammendment to be passed was in 1971 creating the voting age of 18. To say its "just a piece of paper that can be changed" is a gross over statement.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 10:38 PM GMT
    creature said
    Dallasfan824 saidthe pledge is stupid. Those protections already exist. They can sign on or not sign on. Those rights are constitutionally protected.


    But the thing is, they feel those rights are routinely being violated. In most cases, it probably isn't so. What they likely want is an infringement on rights of those who speak out against their rhetoric.


    Well they can ask for that and it will go down in flames in court. Thats what courts and SCOTUS are for.
  • Abe13

    Posts: 155

    Aug 16, 2011 10:38 PM GMT
    Not all republicans hate gays. Just as not all democrats support them. They had the House, Senate and Presidency for two years and couldn't get a simple marriage bill passed. To my knowledge-please correct me if I'm wrong- one never showed up on the floor. To truly get something done in D.C. we need to start over with small government constitutional people. Those defending ALL our rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 10:48 PM GMT
    Dallasfan824 saidthe pledge is stupid. Those protections already exist. They can sign on or not sign on. Those rights are constitutionally protected.

    Not if a Republican takes the White House. Nor Republican majorities in Congress. Look what happened to the Constitution during Bush.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 10:52 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    Dallasfan824 saidthe pledge is stupid. Those protections already exist. They can sign on or not sign on. Those rights are constitutionally protected.

    Not if a Republican takes the White House. Nor Republican majorities in Congress. Look what happened to the Constitution during Bush.


    The gay amendment failed. Miserably. He couldnt even get the republican majority to go along with it. Not to mention no support of democrats. Both of which would be required.

    If you are referring to other things like Gitmo and the Patriot Act....I believe Obama renewed them. So having a democrat in office would be just as bad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 10:54 PM GMT
    Abe13 saidNot all republicans hate gays. Just as not all democrats support them. They had the House, Senate and Presidency for two years and couldn't get a simple marriage bill passed. To my knowledge-please correct me if I'm wrong- one never showed up on the floor. To truly get something done in D.C. we need to start over with small government constitutional people. Those defending ALL our rights.

    Another Republican false statement.

    Democrats had the US Senate for a little over 1 month, in July, 2009. And even if they had the Senate, its arcane rules allowed Republican Senators to personally put blocks on many bills.

    Now do try to challenge me on that. I'm looking forward to it. And your defense of the false statement that Democrats controlled the Senate for "two years." I do love catching Republicans who spew the talking points they're given. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 11:02 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidUmmmm.... And after the "investigations" have been conducted, then what?


    My guess would be to see if any civil rights or constitutional rights were violated. The pledge sounds more like a PR stunt than anything else. Pledges such as these rarely have any traction.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 11:02 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    Dallasfan824 said It takes 2/3 of congress and the states to get done.

    Actually, 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states.


    Thanks for the correction . icon_biggrin.gif
  • Abe13

    Posts: 155

    Aug 16, 2011 11:03 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    Abe13 saidNot all republicans hate gays. Just as not all democrats support them. They had the House, Senate and Presidency for two years and couldn't get a simple marriage bill passed. To my knowledge-please correct me if I'm wrong- one never showed up on the floor. To truly get something done in D.C. we need to start over with small government constitutional people. Those defending ALL our rights.

    Another Republican false statement.

    Democrats had the US Senate for a little over 1 month, in July, 2009. And even if they had the Senate, its arcane rules allowed Republican Senators to personally put blocks on many bills.

    Now do try to challenge me on that. I'm looking forward to it. And your defense of the false statement that Democrats controlled the Senate for "two years." I do love catching Republicans who spew the talking points they're given. icon_biggrin.gif


    I miss-spoke on two years. But it was more than a month unless elections have really gotten weird for the Senate.
    And the health care law was passed despite Republicans doing their best to stop it. Democrats held a filibuster proof Senate! No marriage law past. And I would have been happy if they would have.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 11:08 PM GMT
    Abe13 said
    And the health care law was passed despite Republicans doing their best to stop it. Democrats held a filibuster proof Senate! No marriage law past. And I would have been happy if they would have.


    Let's be real. Civil rights for gays is not a priority for Democrats. Heck, progressive policy is not a priority for Democrats: look at how they extended the Bush tax cuts when all they had to do was do absolutely nothing and they would have expired.

    This pledge is really weirdly worded. No wonder the three weirdest GOP candidates were the first to sign it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 11:11 PM GMT
    Dallasfan824 saidIf you are referring to other things like Gitmo and the Patriot Act....I believe Obama renewed them. So having a democrat in office would be just as bad.

    Really? Do you think Obama is torturing people as Bush did? Or taking them to secret black "rendition" sites outside the US?

    Do you think Obama's ending of DADT, and his refusal to defend DOMA, would have occurred under any Republican President? Do you approve of those actions? Or do you want the current Republican candidates to return us to those former anti-gay policies?

    And do you support those who have taken the pledge to "investigate" us? Do YOU want to be investigated for un-American activities, based on your being gay? If indeed you are.
  • Abe13

    Posts: 155

    Aug 16, 2011 11:11 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    Abe13 said
    And the health care law was passed despite Republicans doing their best to stop it. Democrats held a filibuster proof Senate! No marriage law past. And I would have been happy if they would have.


    Let's be real. Civil rights for gays is not a priority for Democrats. Heck, progressive policy is not a priority for Democrats: look at how they extended the Bush tax cuts when all they had to do was do absolutely nothing and they would have expired.

    This pledge is really weirdly worded. No wonder the three weirdest GOP candidates were the first to sign it.

    Exactly my point. The LGBT community makes great talking points for and against. But when its down to reality...everything gets tabled.
    And I completely agree about who signed it.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Aug 16, 2011 11:17 PM GMT
    This whole thing wreaks of hypocrisy on BOTH sides in my opinion. The pledge merely promises to "establish a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed". I don't see why this should be a big problem. I'll get tomato pummeled for this I am sure, but NEWSFLASH - straight people who don't happen to agree with "Gay Marriage" have every right to voice that opinion, painful as it may be for us to hear. Since when do the gays have the only voice that should be heard and/or protected? The fact of the matter is, some of these groups ARE harassed and/or threatened by militant gay groups and other gay organizations and that isn't any more right than right-wing nuts harassing gays. The double-standard around here sometimes is astounding.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Aug 16, 2011 11:22 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    Abe13 said
    And the health care law was passed despite Republicans doing their best to stop it. Democrats held a filibuster proof Senate! No marriage law past. And I would have been happy if they would have.


    Let's be real. Civil rights for gays is not a priority for Democrats. Heck, progressive policy is not a priority for Democrats: look at how they extended the Bush tax cuts when all they had to do was do absolutely nothing and they would have expired.

    This pledge is really weirdly worded. No wonder the three weirdest GOP candidates were the first to sign it.


    The Bush tax cuts were extended to allow for the extension of unemployment benefits. Don't act as if it was without strings attached.
  • UVaRob9

    Posts: 282

    Aug 16, 2011 11:24 PM GMT
    Dallasfan824 said
    Art_Deco said
    Dallasfan824 saidthe pledge is stupid. Those protections already exist. They can sign on or not sign on. Those rights are constitutionally protected.

    Not if a Republican takes the White House. Nor Republican majorities in Congress. Look what happened to the Constitution during Bush.


    The gay amendment failed. Miserably. He couldnt even get the republican majority to go along with it. Not to mention no support of democrats. Both of which would be required.

    If you are referring to other things like Gitmo and the Patriot Act....I believe Obama renewed them. So having a democrat in office would be just as bad.


    True that the Amendment couldn't have possibly gotten passed at that time, but the fact that Bush was so public about it made several state legislatures bring up the question in their state consitutions and we ended up with not only Bush (again), but marriage bans in several states on Election Day 2004. It was both symbolic and strategic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 11:52 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidThis whole thing wreaks of hypocrisy on BOTH sides in my opinion. The pledge merely promises to "establish a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed". I don't see why this should be a big problem. I'll get tomato pummeled for this I am sure, but NEWSFLASH - straight people who don't happen to agree with "Gay Marriage" have every right to voice that opinion, painful as it may be for us to hear. Since when do the gays have the only voice that should be heard and/or protected? The fact of the matter is, some of these groups ARE harassed and/or threatened by militant gay groups and other gay organizations and that isn't any more right than right-wing nuts harassing gays. The double-standard around here sometimes is astounding.


    +1 ! !
  • Abe13

    Posts: 155

    Aug 16, 2011 11:58 PM GMT
    PaulNKS said
    CuriousJockAZ saidThis whole thing wreaks of hypocrisy on BOTH sides in my opinion. The pledge merely promises to "establish a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed". I don't see why this should be a big problem. I'll get tomato pummeled for this I am sure, but NEWSFLASH - straight people who don't happen to agree with "Gay Marriage" have every right to voice that opinion, painful as it may be for us to hear. Since when do the gays have the only voice that should be heard and/or protected? The fact of the matter is, some of these groups ARE harassed and/or threatened by militant gay groups and other gay organizations and that isn't any more right than right-wing nuts harassing gays. The double-standard around here sometimes is astounding.


    +1 ! !


    +1 as well