MARRIAGE EQUALITY A CONSERVATIVE CAUSE

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Feb 21, 2013 10:07 PM GMT
    Still like me some Jon Huntsman.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marriage-equality-is-a-conservative-cause485/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2013 10:20 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidStill like me some Jon Huntsman.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marriage-equality-is-a-conservative-cause485/


    Excellent article, but one that a few of the left and a few on the right will either dismiss or misinterpret badly.

    As much as I like the man and wish he'd garnered the nomination and run against Obama, his Party brass, along with party members, snubbed him in favour of the unhinged. In a telling way it was a colossal insult to the citizens of the US, that the Republican Party would choose bigots, making the assumption that bigots in the US were a large enough voting block that they should be catered to.

    They found out otherwise. I think the Party should court Mr Huntsman and truly listen to what he has to say.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Feb 21, 2013 10:22 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    They found out otherwise. I think the Party should court Mr Huntsman and truly listen to what he has to say.



    Or maybe it really is time for a viable 3rd Party
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2013 1:47 PM GMT
    And there was this one too from yesterday.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/jon-huntsman-gay-marriage_n_2734444.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2013 1:57 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidStill like me some Jon Huntsman.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marriage-equality-is-a-conservative-cause485/


    Great article. It's too bad more Republicans aren't like him. Or should I say, it's too bad more Republicans (and Democrats to an extent) don't have the balls to go against traditional party lines to express an opinion.

    It's too bad he didn't gain any traction in the Republican primaries. I would have seriously considered voting for him. He's one of the few guys that could seriously work with Congressmen on both sides of the aisle to help find a consensus.
  • LuckyGuyKC

    Posts: 2080

    Feb 22, 2013 2:13 PM GMT
    Huntsman is the only Republican running last year I could have supported for social and fiscal reasons. This from a former Republican that hasn't voted for a Republican since Senator Kit Bond retired a few years back.

    I met Jon and his whole giant family in the mid 80's when I had a lanai next to a whole compound of Huntsman lanais ... they were really nice grounded people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2013 2:17 PM GMT
    He came from a good family. His dad is a great guy. These are from a few years ago, but gives you a pretty good look at Huntsman's dad








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

    Feb 22, 2013 2:44 PM GMT
    John Hunstman already has a 3rd party. It's called John Hunstman.

    And the entire reason he didn't get traction in the primaries was that he's a moron: his platform was "God DAMN but Republicans are awful, aren't they?"

    Know your audience, bud.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2013 3:40 PM GMT
    Larkin saidJohn Hunstman already has a 3rd party. It's called John Hunstman.

    And the entire reason he didn't get traction in the primaries was that he's a moron: his platform was "God DAMN but Republicans are awful, aren't they?"

    Know your audience, bud.


    That wasn't his platform at all. His platform was much closer to that of the Log Cabin Republicans than the Republican base. That's why his campaign didn't gain traction. It's not being a moron. It's called not pandering. That's respectable in of itself.

    Rather than disparage him, shouldn't we be happy he's supporting a cause few visible Republicans are willing to support? You've completely missed the point of the article.

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

    Feb 22, 2013 3:46 PM GMT
    topathlete said
    Larkin saidJohn Hunstman already has a 3rd party. It's called John Hunstman.

    And the entire reason he didn't get traction in the primaries was that he's a moron: his platform was "God DAMN but Republicans are awful, aren't they?"

    Know your audience, bud.

    Couldn't agree more. When he was losing out in the large primary field, his response was to disparage the entire field by asking "Couldn't we do better?" He also complained that he wasn't getting enough air time but when invited on Huckabee to be interviewed individually by 3 attorneys general (not Huckabee) he slimed out of it. After he said the GOP was like the Chinese Communist Party, he was disinvited to a Florida fund raiser. Only a shell of his father. I would like the GOP to take more moderate positions on social issues and eliminate the religious influence in the party, but this guy is not one who will play a role because he has demonstrated to many, including moderates, that he is a total asshole.


    Ok. So I take it that you're not interested in his support of marriage equality?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2013 4:01 PM GMT
    topathlete said
    redsoxfan791 said
    topathlete said
    Larkin saidJohn Hunstman already has a 3rd party. It's called John Hunstman.

    And the entire reason he didn't get traction in the primaries was that he's a moron: his platform was "God DAMN but Republicans are awful, aren't they?"

    Know your audience, bud.

    Couldn't agree more. When he was losing out in the large primary field, his response was to disparage the entire field by asking "Couldn't we do better?" He also complained that he wasn't getting enough air time but when invited on Huckabee to be interviewed individually by 3 attorneys general (not Huckabee) he slimed out of it. After he said the GOP was like the Chinese Communist Party, he was disinvited to a Florida fund raiser. Only a shell of his father. I would like the GOP to take more moderate positions on social issues and eliminate the religious influence in the party, but this guy is not one who will play a role because he has demonstrated to many, including moderates, that he is a total asshole.


    Ok. So I take it that you're not interested in his support of marriage equality?

    Point is I don't think his support will have any impact because he has completely marginalized his influence because of his other actions. There is a battle within the GOP by those who want to go back to the time prior to the GOP alliance with the Christian Coalition and other groups. That is being resisted by the religious groups trying to say they and the GOP are one and the same. Not clear how it will turn out, but guys like Huntsman won't play any significant role.


    I don't think so either. At this time, and much can change in three years, I think Rubio, Christy and Bush (if he chooses).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2013 4:44 PM GMT
    Larkin saidJohn Hunstman already has a 3rd party. It's called John Hunstman.

    And the entire reason he didn't get traction in the primaries was that he's a moron: his platform was "God DAMN but Republicans are awful, aren't they?"

    Know your audience, bud.


    You mean this?

    http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/191670/jon-huntsman-takes-a-shot-at-the-gops-evangelical-social-platform/


    You know Larkin, they'll never be rid of the gigantic ball and chain of wack-job religiosity that rears its ugly head the moment they get in power without some self criticism, examination, and action.


    Up here Mr Harper is our Prime Minister in a majority Conservative gov't.

    Here's a bit of his journey and he was a helluva lot more critical of his party than Huntsman.

    " At the Reform Party's 1994 policy convention, Harper was part of a small minority of delegates who voted against restricting the definition of marriage to "the union of one man and one woman".[22] He actually opposed both same-sex marriage and mandated benefits for same-sex couples, but argued that political parties should refrain from taking official positions on these and other "issues of conscience".[23]
    Harper was the only Reform MP to support the creation of the Canadian Firearms Registry at second reading in 1995, although he later voted against it at third reading stage. He said at the time that he initially voted for the registry because of a poll showing that most of his constituents supported it, and added that he changed his vote when a second poll showed the opposite result. Some accused him of manipulating the second poll to achieve the result he wanted.[24] It was reported in April 1995 that some Progressive Conservatives opposed to Jean Charest's leadership wanted to remove both Charest and Manning, and unite the Reform and Progressive Conservative parties under Harper's leadership.[25]
    Despite his prominent position in the party, Harper's relationship with the Reform Party leadership was frequently strained. In early 1994, he criticized a party decision to establish a personal expense account for Preston Manning at a time when other Reform MPs had been asked to forego parliamentary perquisites.[26] He was formally rebuked by the Reform executive council despite winning support from some MPs. His relationship with Manning grew increasingly fractious in the mid-1990s, and he pointedly declined to express any opinion on Manning's leadership during a 1996 interview.[27] This friction was indicative of a fundamental divide between the two men: Harper was strongly committed to conservative principles and opposed Manning's inclinations toward populism, which Harper saw as leading to compromise on core ideological matters.[28][not in citation given]
    These tensions culminated in late 1996 when Harper announced that he would not be a candidate in the next federal election. He resigned his parliamentary seat on January 14, 1997, the same day that he was appointed as a vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition (NCC), a conservative think-tank and advocacy group.[29] He was promoted to NCC president later in the year.
    In April 1997, Harper suggested that the Reform Party was drifting toward social conservatism and ignoring the principles of economic conservatism."

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

    Feb 22, 2013 8:08 PM GMT
    I'm just really pleased I'm a contented homosexual, in a 20+ year relationship, and this issue of marriage equality are not an issue for my man and I, or our relationship. It would not makes us happier, or help pay the bills.

    Saddly there are those who resent us for our love and contentment. But I see them as putting politics before love; as we don't need some shed of paper to love or be loved.

    One is also pleased that we have also started to move away from that dreadful term "Gay Marriage!" Obviously one has no issue with homosexual unions, but the term "Gay Marriage", I certainly did. AS we would never have a gay wedding, it would be just a wedding.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14395

    Feb 23, 2013 5:01 PM GMT
    Is the GOP finally approaching the cusp of positive change in terms of GLBT equalityicon_question.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2013 5:10 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob saidIs the GOP finally approaching the cusp of positive change in terms of GLBT equalityicon_question.gif


    At the grass roots level .... no. It's been ok for a long time. As I said, as one who has immersed themselves in the party since .... well .... shortly after the civil war, that I have never personally experienced hate from within the party. Confusion a bit maybe sometimes, but that's about it. And as much of a contrarian as I can be around here, I'm also the same with them. I actually try diligently to be trouble and get folks to think. I'm far more 'out' at Republican events than I actually am. I get light-years more hate and vitriol around here than I ever have from fellow republicans.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14395

    Feb 23, 2013 7:54 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    meninlove said

    They found out otherwise. I think the Party should court Mr Huntsman and truly listen to what he has to say.



    Or maybe it really is time for a viable 3rd Party
    That my good friend is long overdue in the US.