MGINSD saidSpeaking of HRC, here's its statement on the Ferguson decision and its riotous aftermath:
Michael Brown’s family and the American people deserve to have this case fully adjudicated in a public trial. Today’s deeply disappointing decision by the grand jury denies them that opportunity. Until we as a nation make a meaningful commitment to ending police profiling — and to fully prosecuting individual cases of brutality — the kind of violence that ended Michael Brown’s life will only continue. As advocates for equality, it’s our job to show solidarity with a growing national movement to break this cycle of police violence. While we cannot begin to imagine the pain that the Brown family is facing at this moment, we send our thoughts, prayers and condolences to them during this heartbreaking and difficult time. We also stand in solidarity with the family's encouragement of peaceful protests and reflection following this decision.
Consider these words carefully before you consider donating to HRC. To my mind, they're a bunch of PC crap that in no way represents the views of the majority of "the gay community."
Neither do you
Self-loathing gay republicans, or as you call yourselves-'independants', should be aware of where your money goes when you donate to the rNC.
The NEW republican party's official position on issues of civil rights below vvv
What majority view do they represent?
Constitutionally define marriage as one man & one woman
Congressional Republicans took the lead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. The current Administration's open defiance of this constitutional principle--in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts--makes a mockery of the President's inaugural oath. We commend the United States House of Representatives and State Attorneys General who have defended these laws when they have been attacked in the courts. We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other States to do so.
Source: 2012 Republican Party Platform , Aug 27, 2012
2006: Federalize gay marriage via Constitutional Amendment
Republicans wanted gay marriage in the national political dialogue that fall, too, but there was a problem. The 50 states owned the issue. How could we in Congress claim jurisdiction? The leadership came up with the radical idea of transforming a legislative state issue into a constitutional federal issue. We would propose a constitutional amendment on gay marriage, one that would ban states from enacting their own social compacts on the issue.
Republicans are generally seen as the party that favors independence at the state level. But now we wanted to amend the US Constitution to forbid any state to allow gays to marry. Congress itself would not ban gay marriage; but the amendment would prevent liberal states from recognizing gay couples as married, even if most citizens in that state wanted such a law enacted. Democracy might be everything in Iraq, but we were declaring an urgent need to rein it in here at home.
Source: Against the Tide, by Sen. Lincoln Chafee, p.181 , Apr 1, 2008
Marriage is legal union of one man and one woman
The Republican Party platform is clear. We believe "marriage" is the legal union of one man and one woman. Americans want to see changes in our tax code, changes in our schools, and changes in our health care system, but there is no public clamor to change the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. In fact, polls consistently show that 2 out of every 3 Americans oppose recognizing same-sex marriage.
We cannot allow tolerance to be redefined as having to agree with one another on every issue. The 86 senators who voted in 1996 to allow states to decide for themselves whether they will recognize gay marriage rather than having that decision imposed upon them by another state's activist supreme court are not "gay bashers."
Source: Winning Right, by Ed Gillespie, p.249 , Sep 5, 2006
The Patriot Act is used to track terrorist activity
The Patriot Act is being used to track terrorist activity and to break up terror cells. Now, the FBI can use tools that have been long available to fight organized crime and drug trafficking, but could not be used in the past to fight terrorism. Intelligence and law enforcement officials are sharing information as never before.
Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 4 , Sep 7, 2004
Homosexuality is incompatible with military service
We affirm traditional military culture, and we affirm that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.