GOP Governors Refusing To Allow Same-Sex Marriage Despite Supreme Court Announcement

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

    Oct 08, 2014 4:38 PM GMT
    One more reason you have to be brain dead to be a gay Republican.

    http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/gop_governors_refusing_to_allow_same_sex_marriage_despite_supreme_court_announcement
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2014 5:29 PM GMT
    i read Idaho, was supposed to start today but got a temporary stay form SCOTUS; Justice Kennedy
    reference:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/us/justice-kennedy-blocks-same-sex-ruling-in-idaho.html?_r=0

    all this is odd but
    i agree with your comment on the brain dead republicans
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4863

    Oct 08, 2014 7:03 PM GMT
    This reminds me of the response of the Southern states to the decision of the Supreme Court that racial segregation is unconstitutional. History is repeating itself.

    Regarding gay men and women in the Republican Party, I suggest not being so judgmental. We have a two party system, so we are affected by the positions taken by both parties. It may be that some gay Republicans have found effective ways to work within the Republican Party to make it more accepting of gay persons.
  • sportsjockla

    Posts: 498

    Oct 08, 2014 9:48 PM GMT
    Scruffypup saidOne more reason you have to be brain dead to be a gay Republican.

    http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/gop_governors_refusing_to_allow_same_sex_marriage_despite_supreme_court_announcement


    There are plenty of Brain Dead Gay Republicans on here. If they want to Vote against themselves... FINE! Gay Republicans stop Voting against the rest of us that fought for you! Dipshits!
  • OutdoorAdvent...

    Posts: 361

    Oct 08, 2014 11:53 PM GMT
    I say we reinstate the death penalty nationwide (which Republicans would support en masse), then make refusing to follow a decision by the Supreme Court a capital offense. That should rid us of a few of the more pesky governors.
  • OutdoorAdvent...

    Posts: 361

    Oct 09, 2014 12:39 AM GMT
    This ^
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2014 1:08 AM GMT
    The Supreme Court's "announcement" was a decision not to do anything. It's potential effect has been way over-hyped by the media.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2014 4:04 AM GMT
    And what do we have here, video of liberal democrat obama praising his good friend the Sultan Of Brunei who passed a law to execute gays by stoning:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxX0Ni3L3bc

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/brunei-sharia-penal-code-gay-stoning

    Obama must approve of stoning gays to death because the video of him praising the sultan is still on the White House website.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2014 1:35 PM GMT
    mx5guynj saidAnd what do we have here, video of liberal democrat obama praising his good friend the Sultan Of Brunei who passed a law to execute gays by stoning:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxX0Ni3L3bc

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/brunei-sharia-penal-code-gay-stoning

    Obama must approve of stoning gays to death because the video of him praising the sultan is still on the White House website.


    Yes, that's obviously what it means. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Are you actually this retarded?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2014 2:32 PM GMT
    If I'm correct, the central issue is that said governors believe the Circuit Court rulings don't directly affect them, since their states weren't parties to the lawsuits.

    Legally speaking, CCOA decisions ARE legally mandatory on ALL the states within the circuit; however, that doesn't make marriage equality automatically law. I know, that sounds like such a contradiction of sorts. However, in order for the Carolinas and West Virginia to have marriage equality, the plaintiffs in the cases still in district court in those states would have to file an emergency petition asking for immediate relief. Once those technicalities are taken care of, equality will be legal in those states and the Governors and agencies will have to obey the ruling.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Oct 09, 2014 5:32 PM GMT
    libertpaulian saidIf I'm correct, the central issue is that said governors believe the Circuit Court rulings don't directly affect them, since their states weren't parties to the lawsuits.

    Legally speaking, CCOA decisions ARE legally mandatory on ALL the states within the circuit; however, that doesn't make marriage equality automatically law. I know, that sounds like such a contradiction of sorts. However, in order for the Carolinas and West Virginia to have marriage equality, the plaintiffs in the cases still in district court in those states would have to file an emergency petition asking for immediate relief. Once those technicalities are taken care of, equality will be legal in those states and the Governors and agencies will have to obey the ruling.


    I disagree. That's ONE way of getting the job done--having a judge strike the law under the controlling precedent.

    The other way is to have the government VOLUNTARILY and in light of the controlling precedent, issue executive and ministerial orders that comply with the clear law. So ther is a non asinine way to accomplish this. You pointed out the arduous, but likely, path.

    For example, IF the Supreme Court had issued a pro gay marriage, no court would dare entertain a lawsuit challening that controlling precedent, and you would NOT have to have cases brought in each jurisdiction. The same applies to the CCOA. They're just being asinine and disrespectful. It's arguably a breach of their duty to uphold the laws of the state/federal government.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Oct 09, 2014 5:37 PM GMT
    mx5guynj saidAnd what do we have here, video of liberal democrat obama praising his good friend the Sultan Of Brunei who passed a law to execute gays by stoning:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxX0Ni3L3bc

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/brunei-sharia-penal-code-gay-stoning

    Obama must approve of stoning gays to death because the video of him praising the sultan is still on the White House website.


    Now we're doing guilt by association? So the Pope is pro-Islam? You're illogical and your desperate attempt to find, bend, cherry-pick, and stretch "facts" to comport with your theory of what Obama is/represents, is disturbing. I'm a liberal Democrat, and I bashed Bush when it was appropriate (and it often was), but I didn't create facts, smear Bush's worth as a person/father, and otherwise take an 8 year stroll down crazyville.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4863

    Oct 09, 2014 6:14 PM GMT
    sportsjockla said
    Scruffypup saidOne more reason you have to be brain dead to be a gay Republican.

    http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/gop_governors_refusing_to_allow_same_sex_marriage_despite_supreme_court_announcement


    There are plenty of Brain Dead Gay Republicans on here. If they want to Vote against themselves... FINE! Gay Republicans stop Voting against the rest of us that fought for you! Dipshits!


    Gay Republicans don't necessarily vote for Republican candidates.

    For many years, I was a member of the Log Cabin Republican Club. I rarely voted for Republican candidates. I let my membership in the Club lapse following the annual meeting in Denver in 2007, which I attended. The Club actually had a Ronald Reagan award. It refused to acknowledge that the Republican Party was heavily anti-gay. Had it acknowledged that the Republican Party was anti-gay but was committed to working for change, I would have remained a member.

    Being a Republican makes it possible to register dissatisfaction with the Republican Party and indicate from time to time why one is not donating to the party. The ability to influence the party is enhanced. However, being a member of the Republican Party does not require one to vote for Republican candidates.

    I also changed my registration from Republican to Democrat.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Oct 09, 2014 6:42 PM GMT
    Just another example of the GOP's respect for the Constitution. As long as it agrees with them.

    Maybe if they realized that Gay people are corporations, too
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Oct 09, 2014 6:43 PM GMT
    FRE0 said
    sportsjockla said
    Scruffypup saidOne more reason you have to be brain dead to be a gay Republican.

    http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/gop_governors_refusing_to_allow_same_sex_marriage_despite_supreme_court_announcement


    There are plenty of Brain Dead Gay Republicans on here. If they want to Vote against themselves... FINE! Gay Republicans stop Voting against the rest of us that fought for you! Dipshits!


    Gay Republicans don't necessarily vote for Republican candidates.

    For many years, I was a member of the Log Cabin Republican Club. I rarely voted for Republican candidates. I let my membership in the Club lapse following the annual meeting in Denver in 2007, which I attended. The Club actually had a Ronald Reagan award. It refused to acknowledge that the Republican Party was heavily anti-gay. Had it acknowledged that the Republican Party was anti-gay but was committed to working for change, I would have remained a member.

    Being a Republican makes it possible to register dissatisfaction with the Republican Party and indicate from time to time why one is not donating to the party. The ability to influence the party is enhanced. However, being a member of the Republican Party does not require one to vote for Republican candidates.

    I also changed my registration from Republican to Democrat.


    Umm, this sounds like Jews for Jesus, the Gypsy Nazi Party, and a Black White Supremacist all rolled into one. I understand the "change it from the inside" argument, but there are MANY issues we need to address.

    (1). First, assuming politics lends itself to change from the inside, which I highly doubt unless you ran as a politician and martyred yourself, the Republican thugs on here either won't acknowledge the homophobia in the GOP, or they minimize it. The point is that it's not like some RJers say, "gee guys, I'm Republican, but please don't judge me off the bat. I'm working for change in the GOP from the inside, and I want the GOP to change on the LGBT issues, and it IS a big deal." Nope. Not at all. The Republican thugs that come on here are all salt and vinegar, "Obama is worse than XYZ," "the GOP may be antigay, but it's not a big deal because the democrats aren't better," "the GOP isn't THAT bad on lgbt issues," etc. So the tone and posture is WAY OFF the mark, even granting your change from the inside argument.

    (2). Second, civil rights are not a debatable issue, and it shows moral cowardice to let other issues trump that. The LGBT civl rights issue is THE civil rights issue of this generation (the prior one being race civil rights). To say that you can compare apples to oranges is, quite frankly, an insult. You cannot justify the Nazi party because they really had a sound economic and international plan, and just happened to commit a Holocaust against Jews, gypsies, gays and their German sympathizers. That's B.S. Civil rights are not debatable. Once the GOP embraces civil rights for LGBTs, then I'm okay with people holding their head up on the other side of the aisle (GOP side) and debating marginal tax rates, economic intervention policies, environmental regulations, and the proper balance between isolationism and interventionism in foreign policy. Those are debates. Civil rights are not up for debate. Lots of Third Reich members use the same tired argument you're peddling here to justify LGBTs voting or supporting the GOP.

    I refuse to support a party that wants to convert me, suppress me, or treat me like a second class citizen. And that bitter taste the conservatives left in blacks mouths when they opposed civil rights reigns today where blacks vote 90% Democrat consistently. I hope LGBTs don't forget the sins of the GOP and continues to show strong liberal/Democrat bias. Institutional memory is not a bad thing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2014 3:46 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    libertpaulian saidIf I'm correct, the central issue is that said governors believe the Circuit Court rulings don't directly affect them, since their states weren't parties to the lawsuits.

    Legally speaking, CCOA decisions ARE legally mandatory on ALL the states within the circuit; however, that doesn't make marriage equality automatically law. I know, that sounds like such a contradiction of sorts. However, in order for the Carolinas and West Virginia to have marriage equality, the plaintiffs in the cases still in district court in those states would have to file an emergency petition asking for immediate relief. Once those technicalities are taken care of, equality will be legal in those states and the Governors and agencies will have to obey the ruling.


    I disagree. That's ONE way of getting the job done--having a judge strike the law under the controlling precedent.

    The other way is to have the government VOLUNTARILY and in light of the controlling precedent, issue executive and ministerial orders that comply with the clear law. So ther is a non asinine way to accomplish this. You pointed out the arduous, but likely, path.

    For example, IF the Supreme Court had issued a pro gay marriage, no court would dare entertain a lawsuit challening that controlling precedent, and you would NOT have to have cases brought in each jurisdiction. The same applies to the CCOA. They're just being asinine and disrespectful. It's arguably a breach of their duty to uphold the laws of the state/federal government.


    So, at the risk of being labeled "asinine and disrespectful," what's your take on Obama-Holder's efforts to resurrect the dispensing power by not enforcing, and urging state AGs, not to enforce, laws with which they disagree? Or, doesn't your definition of duty go to that degree?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2014 3:50 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    mx5guynj saidAnd what do we have here, video of liberal democrat obama praising his good friend the Sultan Of Brunei who passed a law to execute gays by stoning:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxX0Ni3L3bc

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/brunei-sharia-penal-code-gay-stoning

    Obama must approve of stoning gays to death because the video of him praising the sultan is still on the White House website.


    Now we're doing guilt by association? So the Pope is pro-Islam? You're illogical and your desperate attempt to find, bend, cherry-pick, and stretch "facts" to comport with your theory of what Obama is/represents, is disturbing. I'm a liberal Democrat, and I bashed Bush when it was appropriate (and it often was), but I didn't create facts, smear Bush's worth as a person/father, and otherwise take an 8 year stroll down crazyville.


    LOL! The topic changes, but the rant remains the same: these pages are full of your anti-Bush, anti-GOP, and anti-anything-you-disagree-with slurs and invented facts, many of which are ad hominem creations proved false by those in the know, i.e., anyone but you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2014 4:15 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    FRE0 said
    sportsjockla said
    Scruffypup saidOne more reason you have to be brain dead to be a gay Republican.

    http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/gop_governors_refusing_to_allow_same_sex_marriage_despite_supreme_court_announcement


    There are plenty of Brain Dead Gay Republicans on here. If they want to Vote against themselves... FINE! Gay Republicans stop Voting against the rest of us that fought for you! Dipshits!


    Gay Republicans don't necessarily vote for Republican candidates.

    For many years, I was a member of the Log Cabin Republican Club. I rarely voted for Republican candidates. I let my membership in the Club lapse following the annual meeting in Denver in 2007, which I attended. The Club actually had a Ronald Reagan award. It refused to acknowledge that the Republican Party was heavily anti-gay. Had it acknowledged that the Republican Party was anti-gay but was committed to working for change, I would have remained a member.

    Being a Republican makes it possible to register dissatisfaction with the Republican Party and indicate from time to time why one is not donating to the party. The ability to influence the party is enhanced. However, being a member of the Republican Party does not require one to vote for Republican candidates.

    I also changed my registration from Republican to Democrat.


    Umm, this sounds like Jews for Jesus, the Gypsy Nazi Party, and a Black White Supremacist all rolled into one. I understand the "change it from the inside" argument, but there are MANY issues we need to address.

    (1). First, assuming politics lends itself to change from the inside, which I highly doubt unless you ran as a politician and martyred yourself, the Republican thugs on here either won't acknowledge the homophobia in the GOP, or they minimize it. The point is that it's not like some RJers say, "gee guys, I'm Republican, but please don't judge me off the bat. I'm working for change in the GOP from the inside, and I want the GOP to change on the LGBT issues, and it IS a big deal." Nope. Not at all. The Republican thugs that come on here are all salt and vinegar, "Obama is worse than XYZ," "the GOP may be antigay, but it's not a big deal because the democrats aren't better," "the GOP isn't THAT bad on lgbt issues," etc. So the tone and posture is WAY OFF the mark, even granting your change from the inside argument.

    (2). Second, civil rights are not a debatable issue, and it shows moral cowardice to let other issues trump that. The LGBT civl rights issue is THE civil rights issue of this generation (the prior one being race civil rights). To say that you can compare apples to oranges is, quite frankly, an insult. You cannot justify the Nazi party because they really had a sound economic and international plan, and just happened to commit a Holocaust against Jews, gypsies, gays and their German sympathizers. That's B.S. Civil rights are not debatable. Once the GOP embraces civil rights for LGBTs, then I'm okay with people holding their head up on the other side of the aisle (GOP side) and debating marginal tax rates, economic intervention policies, environmental regulations, and the proper balance between isolationism and interventionism in foreign policy. Those are debates. Civil rights are not up for debate. Lots of Third Reich members use the same tired argument you're peddling here to justify LGBTs voting or supporting the GOP.

    I refuse to support a party that wants to convert me, suppress me, or treat me like a second class citizen. And that bitter taste the conservatives left in blacks mouths when they opposed civil rights reigns today where blacks vote 90% Democrat consistently. I hope LGBTs don't forget the sins of the GOP and continues to show strong liberal/Democrat bias. Institutional memory is not a bad thing.


    WE need to address? Speak for yourself, friend.

    1. I don't know a single self-identified, as the left likes to say, GOPer on here who doesn't and hasn't recognized what you call the homophobia in Abe Lincoln's party. Unlike you, however, we move on and actually try to do something about it, the concept of which you claim to respect, but the reality of which you reject. Remember that ENDA almost passed the Senate in 1996 and it got to that point because 7 GOPers supported it; that it didn't pass outright was due to 5 of your friends in Robert Byrd, George Wallace and Lester Maddox's party voting against it. If we come across TO YOU as "piss and vinegar," perhaps that's because we're not afraid to tell it like it is, and deflate the tired cliches about politics, society and race that you and your comrades continually spew. Each and every one of us has used your recommended approach, only to have it met with either personal attacks or fact-deficient rants, or both, in which you've been a key player, if I may use that term w/o fear of again being called a "racist."

    2. As you regularly do, you've created another straw man here. There's no dispute that gay civil rights are one of the key social issues today or that their guarantee is non-debatable. The scope of those rights is what's rightly under discussion, and if there are parallels between blacks' struggle for civil rights, they go both ways; gays should NOT fall prey to seeking quotas, "reparations," speech codes, or any of the other over-the-top nonsense that is "embraced," to use one of its favorite terms, by "the black community," whatever, like "the gay community," that amorphous blob may be.

    3. I'll read your use of the "conservatives" in your last point as including the several Democrats who voted against the 1964 civil progress. Good, we're making progress. But, we can do without your politicking for gays to stay Democrat; we can think for ourselves, TYVM! There are more important issues facing us than just our own civil rights, and to my mind, and many other gay GOPers', the Democrats' approach to them has been and remains simply shameful and one we rightly object as dangerous to and not in the best interests of our country.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4863

    Oct 11, 2014 5:15 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    FRE0 said
    sportsjockla said
    Scruffypup saidOne more reason you have to be brain dead to be a gay Republican.

    http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/gop_governors_refusing_to_allow_same_sex_marriage_despite_supreme_court_announcement


    There are plenty of Brain Dead Gay Republicans on here. If they want to Vote against themselves... FINE! Gay Republicans stop Voting against the rest of us that fought for you! Dipshits!


    Gay Republicans don't necessarily vote for Republican candidates.

    For many years, I was a member of the Log Cabin Republican Club. I rarely voted for Republican candidates. I let my membership in the Club lapse following the annual meeting in Denver in 2007, which I attended. The Club actually had a Ronald Reagan award. It refused to acknowledge that the Republican Party was heavily anti-gay. Had it acknowledged that the Republican Party was anti-gay but was committed to working for change, I would have remained a member.

    Being a Republican makes it possible to register dissatisfaction with the Republican Party and indicate from time to time why one is not donating to the party. The ability to influence the party is enhanced. However, being a member of the Republican Party does not require one to vote for Republican candidates.

    I also changed my registration from Republican to Democrat.


    Umm, this sounds like Jews for Jesus, the Gypsy Nazi Party, and a Black White Supremacist all rolled into one. I understand the "change it from the inside" argument, but there are MANY issues we need to address.

    (1). First, assuming politics lends itself to change from the inside, which I highly doubt unless you ran as a politician and martyred yourself, the Republican thugs on here either won't acknowledge the homophobia in the GOP, or they minimize it. The point is that it's not like some RJers say, "gee guys, I'm Republican, but please don't judge me off the bat. I'm working for change in the GOP from the inside, and I want the GOP to change on the LGBT issues, and it IS a big deal." Nope. Not at all. The Republican thugs that come on here are all salt and vinegar, "Obama is worse than XYZ," "the GOP may be antigay, but it's not a big deal because the democrats aren't better," "the GOP isn't THAT bad on lgbt issues," etc. So the tone and posture is WAY OFF the mark, even granting your change from the inside argument.

    (2). Second, civil rights are not a debatable issue, and it shows moral cowardice to let other issues trump that. The LGBT civl rights issue is THE civil rights issue of this generation (the prior one being race civil rights). To say that you can compare apples to oranges is, quite frankly, an insult. You cannot justify the Nazi party because they really had a sound economic and international plan, and just happened to commit a Holocaust against Jews, gypsies, gays and their German sympathizers. That's B.S. Civil rights are not debatable. Once the GOP embraces civil rights for LGBTs, then I'm okay with people holding their head up on the other side of the aisle (GOP side) and debating marginal tax rates, economic intervention policies, environmental regulations, and the proper balance between isolationism and interventionism in foreign policy. Those are debates. Civil rights are not up for debate. Lots of Third Reich members use the same tired argument you're peddling here to justify LGBTs voting or supporting the GOP.

    I refuse to support a party that wants to convert me, suppress me, or treat me like a second class citizen. And that bitter taste the conservatives left in blacks mouths when they opposed civil rights reigns today where blacks vote 90% Democrat consistently. I hope LGBTs don't forget the sins of the GOP and continues to show strong liberal/Democrat bias. Institutional memory is not a bad thing.


    I hope that you noticed that I changed my registration from Republican to Democrat.

    Moreover, it IS sometimes possible to change the attitude of organizations from within. It is common knowledge that some churches have changed their attitudes towards gay men and women and have even moved from condemning gay persons to supporting same-sex marriage. That was done by working from within. There is no reason to assume that the same thing cannot be done with political parties.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2014 5:53 PM GMT
    FRE0 said
    I hope that you noticed that I changed my registration from Republican to Democrat.

    Moreover, it IS sometimes possible to change the attitude of organizations from within. It is common knowledge that some churches have changed their attitudes towards gay men and women and have even moved from condemning gay persons to supporting same-sex marriage. That was done by working from within. There is no reason to assume that the same thing cannot be done with political parties.

    Congrats on leaving a Party dedicated to the destruction of gays. That believes being gay is an impermissable choice we make, in defiance of the Bible (which to Republicans supercedes the US Constitution), a disorder that can be reprogrammed and prayed away, that should be made illegal in the US once again. Denying civil rights to those who "say" they are gay, barring them from the US military, and treating them as second-class citizens. A modern class of Black slaves.

    It's one thing to argue the idea of change from within, but also a moral dilemma to associate oneself with your own sworn ideologial & political enemies. As this thread about recalcitrant Republican Governors illustrates that Party to be at its core - rotten.

    BTW, I was raised Republican by my parents. And when I say raised, I also mean indoctrinated. I was even a "YR" (Young Republicans). Yet my parents were good people, when the Party had some good values and decent people in it. The "Party of Lincoln" hadn't yet descended into a neo-segregationist, racist, sexist, anti-minority, anti-worker and homophobic hate organization.

    They effectively evolved into the former Dixiecrats (ultra-conservative Southern Democrats) who arose in oppositon to Civil War Reconstruction, and existed until the 1970s. Yet Republicans continue to falsely claim the mantle of Lincoln, and try to associate modern Democrats with the sins of the Dixiecrats of old, their own actual forebearers. Lincoln would be turning over in his grave to hear his name being misappropriated by the kind of people he led a nation in war against to defeat.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2014 6:40 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    FRE0 said
    I hope that you noticed that I changed my registration from Republican to Democrat.

    Moreover, it IS sometimes possible to change the attitude of organizations from within. It is common knowledge that some churches have changed their attitudes towards gay men and women and have even moved from condemning gay persons to supporting same-sex marriage. That was done by working from within. There is no reason to assume that the same thing cannot be done with political parties.

    Congrats on leaving a Party dedicated to the destruction of gays. That believes being gay is an impermissable choice we make, in defiance of the Bible (which to Republicans supercedes the US Constitution), a disorder that can be reprogrammed and prayed away, that should be made illegal in the US once again. Denying civil rights to those who "say" they are gay, barring them from the US military, and treating them as second-class citizens. A modern class of Black slaves.

    It's one thing to argue the idea of change from within, but also a moral dilemma to associate oneself with your own sworn ideologial & political enemies. As this thread about recalcitrant Republican Governors illustrates that Party to be at its core - rotten.

    BTW, I was raised Republican by my parents. And when I say raised, I also mean indoctrinated. I was even a "YR" (Young Republicans). Yet my parents were good people, when the Party had some good values and decent people in it. The "Party of Lincoln" hadn't yet descended into a neo-segregationist, racist, sexist, anti-minority, anti-worker and homophobic hate organization.

    They effectively evolved into the former Dixiecrats (ultra-conservative Southern Democrats) who arose in oppositon to Civil War Reconstruction, and existed until the 1970s. Yet Republicans continue to falsely claim the mantle of Lincoln, and try to associate modern Democrats with the sins of the Dixiecrats of old, their own actual forebearers. Lincoln would be turning over in his grave to hear his name being misappropriated by the kind of people he led a nation in war against to defeat.


    You wouldn't want to exaggerate anything, now, would you? "Dedicated to the destruction of gays?" Sheesh. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Perhaps you'd like to explain [away] why 5 of those "modern Democrats" of yours voted against ENDA back in '96. Or doesn't that go back far enough to suit your argument? Maybe it's too recent? Either way, your argument is based on hyperbole and wild allegations instead of concrete facts.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4863

    Oct 11, 2014 7:52 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    FRE0 said
    I hope that you noticed that I changed my registration from Republican to Democrat.

    Moreover, it IS sometimes possible to change the attitude of organizations from within. It is common knowledge that some churches have changed their attitudes towards gay men and women and have even moved from condemning gay persons to supporting same-sex marriage. That was done by working from within. There is no reason to assume that the same thing cannot be done with political parties.

    Congrats on leaving a Party dedicated to the destruction of gays. That believes being gay is an impermissable choice we make, in defiance of the Bible (which to Republicans supercedes the US Constitution), a disorder that can be reprogrammed and prayed away, that should be made illegal in the US once again. Denying civil rights to those who "say" they are gay, barring them from the US military, and treating them as second-class citizens. A modern class of Black slaves.

    It's one thing to argue the idea of change from within, but also a moral dilemma to associate oneself with your own sworn ideologial & political enemies. As this thread about recalcitrant Republican Governors illustrates that Party to be at its core - rotten.

    BTW, I was raised Republican by my parents. And when I say raised, I also mean indoctrinated. I was even a "YR" (Young Republicans). Yet my parents were good people, when the Party had some good values and decent people in it. The "Party of Lincoln" hadn't yet descended into a neo-segregationist, racist, sexist, anti-minority, anti-worker and homophobic hate organization.

    They effectively evolved into the former Dixiecrats (ultra-conservative Southern Democrats) who arose in oppositon to Civil War Reconstruction, and existed until the 1970s. Yet Republicans continue to falsely claim the mantle of Lincoln, and try to associate modern Democrats with the sins of the Dixiecrats of old, their own actual forebearers. Lincoln would be turning over in his grave to hear his name being misappropriated by the kind of people he led a nation in war against to defeat.


    You're right. At one time the GOP was the party of Lincoln and supported civil rights for blacks. Barry Goldwater integrated his division of the air national guard years before there was a strong push to do do. The percentage of GOP senators who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was higher than the percentage of Democrats who do did so. But later, something went horribly wrong and the GOP was taken over by crazy reactionaries (not conservatives).

    My parents and siblings were Republicans. However, my siblings and I became Democrats when it became clear that the Republican party was the party of reactionaries who cared little for others. Of course there are exceptions; not all Republicans are like that, and some are just naïve. But when it became inescapably clear to me that the Republican Party was no longer conservative, but had changed to become strongly reactionary and destructive, I changed my registration.

    Even so, I would not fault people in the GOP who are trying to change the party. Many of us were successful in changing the attitudes of the churches to which we belong and, without our work, the attitudes of the churches would not have changed; it had to be done from within. If we had all left our churches, the changes would not have occurred. I myself contributed to that change within the Episcopal Church. Perhaps some people will succeed in changing the attitude of the GOP.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2014 9:57 PM GMT
    FRE0 said
    Art_Deco said
    FRE0 said
    I hope that you noticed that I changed my registration from Republican to Democrat.

    Moreover, it IS sometimes possible to change the attitude of organizations from within. It is common knowledge that some churches have changed their attitudes towards gay men and women and have even moved from condemning gay persons to supporting same-sex marriage. That was done by working from within. There is no reason to assume that the same thing cannot be done with political parties.

    Congrats on leaving a Party dedicated to the destruction of gays. That believes being gay is an impermissable choice we make, in defiance of the Bible (which to Republicans supercedes the US Constitution), a disorder that can be reprogrammed and prayed away, that should be made illegal in the US once again. Denying civil rights to those who "say" they are gay, barring them from the US military, and treating them as second-class citizens. A modern class of Black slaves.

    It's one thing to argue the idea of change from within, but also a moral dilemma to associate oneself with your own sworn ideologial & political enemies. As this thread about recalcitrant Republican Governors illustrates that Party to be at its core - rotten.

    BTW, I was raised Republican by my parents. And when I say raised, I also mean indoctrinated. I was even a "YR" (Young Republicans). Yet my parents were good people, when the Party had some good values and decent people in it. The "Party of Lincoln" hadn't yet descended into a neo-segregationist, racist, sexist, anti-minority, anti-worker and homophobic hate organization.

    They effectively evolved into the former Dixiecrats (ultra-conservative Southern Democrats) who arose in oppositon to Civil War Reconstruction, and existed until the 1970s. Yet Republicans continue to falsely claim the mantle of Lincoln, and try to associate modern Democrats with the sins of the Dixiecrats of old, their own actual forebearers. Lincoln would be turning over in his grave to hear his name being misappropriated by the kind of people he led a nation in war against to defeat.


    You're right. At one time the GOP was the party of Lincoln and supported civil rights for blacks. Barry Goldwater integrated his division of the air national guard years before there was a strong push to do do. The percentage of GOP senators who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was higher than the percentage of Democrats who do did so. But later, something went horribly wrong and the GOP was taken over by crazy reactionaries (not conservatives).

    My parents and siblings were Republicans. However, my siblings and I became Democrats when it became clear that the Republican party was the party of reactionaries who cared little for others. Of course there are exceptions; not all Republicans are like that, and some are just naïve. But when it became inescapably clear to me that the Republican Party was no longer conservative, but had changed to become strongly reactionary and destructive, I changed my registration.

    Even so, I would not fault people in the GOP who are trying to change the party. Many of us were successful in changing the attitudes of the churches to which we belong and, without our work, the attitudes of the churches would not have changed; it had to be done from within. If we had all left our churches, the changes would not have occurred. I myself contributed to that change within the Episcopal Church. Perhaps some people will succeed in changing the attitude of the GOP.


    Thanks.