Texas GOP lawmakers threaten to cut funding to LGBT supportive schools

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

    Mar 02, 2013 7:53 PM GMT
    [Republican State Rep. Drew] Springer said his bill comes in response to the Pflugerville School District in suburban Austin, which began offering insurance benefits to same-sex couples in domestic partnerships.

    Chuck Smith, the Executive Director of Equality Texas told LGBTQ Nation on Monday that his group sees Springer’s bill as overreaching.

    “[Springer] is not directly affected by this school district’s actions," Smith said. “Locally elected officials are in the best position to make local decisions about what benefits are needed to hire and retain the best educators. They don’t need big state government coming in and pulling the strings.”


    I guess "big government" is an elastic term for Republicans. It's big when it's doing the things they don't like, but not big when it gets involved in regressive social engineering, and intrusions into your bedroom.

    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/02/texas-gop-lawmakers-threaten-to-cut-funding-to-lgbt-supportive-schools/
  • Lukehiker

    Posts: 161

    Mar 02, 2013 8:25 PM GMT
    Exactly. There are so many contradictions within the GOP right now, its hard to believe everyone cannot see them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 8:27 PM GMT
    Lukehiker saidExactly. There are so many contradictions within the GOP right now, its hard to believe everyone cannot see them.
    It's not that there are contradictions within the GOP. It's that some GOP believe it is time to change and go with the world on social issues, while other believe we need to become even more conservative and not let lose on certain ideas. This is why the GOP is in disarray, they can't agree on anything. Hopefully this GOP will not be re-elected next time and the next GOP to take his place will be one of the GOP who wants to change what the GOP means.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 8:31 PM GMT
    Rad, you just very efficiently explained the contradiction they're referring to.

    " It's that some GOP believe it is time to change and go with the world on social issues, while other believe we need to become even more conservative and not let lose on certain ideas."

    That, my friend, is a fine example of a contradiction. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 8:32 PM GMT
    RadRTT said
    Lukehiker saidExactly. There are so many contradictions within the GOP right now, its hard to believe everyone cannot see them.
    It's not that there are contradictions within the GOP. It's that some GOP believe it is time to change and go with the world on social issues, while other believe we need to become even more conservative and not let lose on certain ideas. This is why the GOP is in disarray, they can't agree on anything. Hopefully this GOP will not be re-elected next time and the next GOP to take his place will be one of the GOP who wants to change what the GOP means.

    That's assuming such a political creature exists in Texas, and can get elected. There hasn't been a lot of recent evidence of one, whereas guys like this keep getting elected and reelected. Note that the other GOP lawmaker in this article is a freshman. Another generation of regressive GOPers taking office in Texas.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 8:37 PM GMT
    meninlove said Rad, you just very efficiently explained the contradiction they're referring to.

    " It's that some GOP believe it is time to change and go with the world on social issues, while other believe we need to become even more conservative and not let lose on certain ideas."

    That, my friend, is a fine example of a contradiction. icon_wink.gif
    Its true when you look at the GOP as a whole. Right now I look at it as 2 entities. The ones who don't want change and the ones who do. I don't believe there is one GOP anymore.

    But if you do look at the GOP as a whole then yes you are right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 8:39 PM GMT

    That's what we're doing Rad. We're talking about the GOP, not parts of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 8:39 PM GMT
    ART_DECO saidThat's assuming such a political creature exists in Texas, and can get elected. There hasn't been a lot of recent evidence of one, whereas guys like this keep getting elected and reelected. Note that the other GOP lawmaker in this article is a freshman. Another generation of regressive GOPers taking office in Texas.
    I am sure there are, they just have no spoken up yet. Remember some GOP are worried that their ideals on social issues wont get them supported by the public conservatives. Part of it is not the candidate running it is also who votes for them.

    But Texas is now beginning to be Purple. Houston or Dallas recently came out in support of Gay Rights. I really think there are a lot worse states than Texas in regards to gay rights.
  • Lukehiker

    Posts: 161

    Mar 02, 2013 8:40 PM GMT
    RadRTT said
    meninlove said Rad, you just very efficiently explained the contradiction they're referring to.

    " It's that some GOP believe it is time to change and go with the world on social issues, while other believe we need to become even more conservative and not let lose on certain ideas."

    That, my friend, is a fine example of a contradiction. icon_wink.gif
    Its true when you look at the GOP as a whole. Right now I look at it as 2 entities. The ones who don't want change and the ones who do. I don't believe there is one GOP anymore.

    But if you do look at the GOP as a whole then yes you are right.


    The problem arises when they fly the same banner. No matter how hard they try to be progressive or regressive, they banner they fly is still the same.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 8:40 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    That's what we're doing Rad. We're about the GOP, not parts of it.
    But then when talking about the GOP don't say it is against gay rights as a whole, because now many GOP candidates are coming out in support.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 8:41 PM GMT
    Lukehiker saidThe problem arises when they fly the same banner. No matter how hard they try to be progressive or regressive, they banner they fly is still the same.
    Then don't expect change. With the attitude, you don't want them to change and even if they changed as a whole you would not agree with them still. It's time to get over symbols and look at actions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 8:43 PM GMT
    RadRTT said
    meninlove said

    That's what we're doing Rad. We're about the GOP, not parts of it.
    But then when talking about the GOP don't say it is against gay rights as a whole, because now many GOP candidates are coming out in support.


    As a whole, it is against. Until their power hitters sign on and can convince their majority otherwise.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 8:45 PM GMT
    meninlove saidAs a whole, it is. Until their power hitters sign on and can convince their majority otherwise.
    See you are wrong there. You want to group them. Just like many people group gay guys as a bunch of wrist flipping effeminate guys.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 8:48 PM GMT
    RadRTT said
    meninlove saidAs a whole, it is. Until their power hitters sign on and can convince their majority otherwise.
    See you are wrong there. You want to group them. Just like many people group gay guys as a bunch of wrist flipping effeminate guys.


    OK, so first you've told me "Don't say" and now you're telling me "you're wrong"



    The GOP officially has a stance. You're telling me I'm wrong to look at that and only look at progressives in the GOP which are a minority.
    Can't do that, Rad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 8:51 PM GMT
    meninlove saidThe GOP officially has a stance. You're telling me I'm wrong to look at that and only look at progressives in the GOP which are a minority.
    Can't do that, Rad.
    The GOP official stance is not supported by everyone under the GOP. There are GOP working to change that. So it makes non-official because not all support it. The GOP as a whole is in ruin and is divided into two separate entities. Telling someone they are against a certain stance is wrong and fascist because they are just under a certain banner.

    Remember there are certain top Democrats who Refuse to allow gay rights...don't go telling them that they support gay rights just because the banner they are under supports it. As well as don't go believing they are on your side because they are Democratic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 8:58 PM GMT

    "So it makes non-official because not all support it."

    Well, I'm sure the Party brass will be pleased to know that the official GOP stance is not official.

    As for Democrats, if the official party line is equality, then in their administrative roles they have to do just that, in spite of any personal feelings.

    It would be the same if the GOP embraced equality. The official stance would be one the recalcitrants would have to follow in their political duties.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 9:03 PM GMT
    @meninlove I get what you are saying, I really do. But I see change within the group coming soon. Especially more when they go on for the Primary Election. I also see more when we lose some of these old guys in power. I see change when Prop 8 is overturned. But I am certainly not going to judge a whole group on their stances, I will judge people individually by their actions.

    Just remember the Democrats, whose Official Stance is Equality, are the ones who signed DOMA into law. I don't judge Democrats as a whole for that or Clinton. But, I look at Clinton as to what he is doing now and how often he regrets signing that into law and how he wants to help gay rights.

    Also look at Bush's children. We all know his stance on gay rights. But his children, they are out there trying to change his mind as well as many other GOP. Many people judge the Bush family as a whole but look at what his daughters are doing for gay rights.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14395

    Mar 02, 2013 9:11 PM GMT
    What do you expect, its Texas which is an intolerant, ultraconservative southern state that wants to go back in time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 9:11 PM GMT
    @ Rad: Well, at this point you're mixing history with current affairs. Let's stick to the present, which this is all about. Now. Not then.

    As far as history goes, back then both parties in gov't agreed and voted DOMA into law. One Party changed; one didn't.



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

    Mar 02, 2013 9:18 PM GMT
    meninlove said @ Rad: Well, at this point you're mixing history with current affairs. Let's stick to the present, which this is all about. Now. Not then.

    As far as history goes, back then both parties in gov't agreed and voted DOMA into law. One Party changed; one didn't.
    What matters is the party that created it and signed it. But like I said I look at individual people not parties. I am neither Liberal or Conservative.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 9:26 PM GMT
    RadRTT said
    meninlove said @ Rad: Well, at this point you're mixing history with current affairs. Let's stick to the present, which this is all about. Now. Not then.

    As far as history goes, back then both parties in gov't agreed and voted DOMA into law. One Party changed; one didn't.
    What matters is the party that created it and signed it. But like I said I look at individual people not parties. I am neither Liberal or Conservative.


    DOMA was a Republican creation.

    'Georgia Representative Bob Barr, then a Republican, authored the Defense of Marriage Act and introduced it in the House of Representatives on May 7, 1996. '
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 9:29 PM GMT
    meninlove saidDOMA was a Republican creation.

    'Georgia Representative Bob Barr, then a Republican, authored the Defense of Marriage Act and introduced it in the House of Representatives on May 7, 1996. '
    I did not know that. But who signed it into law. A bill can easily be passed or vetoes. But our Commander in Chief at the time, President Bill Clinton a Democrat, signed it into law and supported it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 9:30 PM GMT
    RadRTT said
    meninlove saidDOMA was a Republican creation.

    'Georgia Representative Bob Barr, then a Republican, authored the Defense of Marriage Act and introduced it in the House of Representatives on May 7, 1996. '
    I did not know that. But who signed it into law. A bill can easily be passed or vetoes. But our Commander in Chief at the time, President Bill Clinton a Democrat, signed it into law and supported it.


    ...and as I said before, both parties were on the same page back then. One party changed; one didn't.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 9:47 PM GMT
    meninlove said ...and as I said before, both parties were on the same page back then. One party changed; one didn't.
    The democrat party did not change as a whole, some still support DOMA, but they are a minority. Oh wait, you said you dont follow the minority, so I guess that means you don't follow gay people, because we are the minority of humans.

    And Democrats still need to be held responsible as the main reason why this law is around.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2013 9:52 PM GMT

    "Oh wait, you said you dont follow the minority, so I guess that means you don't follow gay people, because we are the minority of humans."

    If you're going to get insulting Rad, then I'm done.

    And you guess wrong.

    Tell you what, if there were some Westboro church members that were OK with gay does that mean the Westboro church stance of god hates fags is not official or that we should not judge the church?