the new Republican Purity Test (and guess what? It is anti-gay equality)

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

    Nov 24, 2009 2:21 PM GMT
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/11/24/some-conservatives-push-a-purity-test-for-gop-candidates/

    Conservative Republican Party activists want to withhold money from GOP candidates who stray too far from party orthodoxy.

    Ten Republican National Committee members are distributing a plan to impose a purity test calling for money to be withheld from anyone who disagrees with conservative principles on more than two of 10 core issues.

    Among the required stances: oppose President Barack Obamas health care and cap-and-trade proposals as well as his stimulus plan; reject government funding for abortion; vote no on legislation to help unions organize; and support keeping the Defense of Marriage Act.

    THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:

    (1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obamas stimulus bill;
    (2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
    (3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
    (4) We support workers right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
    (5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
    (6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
    (7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
    (8 We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
    (9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
    (10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further


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

    Nov 24, 2009 3:12 PM GMT
    OutdoorMutt said
    (1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obamas stimulus bill;
    (2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
    (3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
    (4) We support workers right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
    (5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
    (6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
    (7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
    (8 We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
    (9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
    (10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further


    I think (1), (6), (icon_cool.gif and (9) are mutually incompatible.

    (1) I can't help noticing how much the US National debt grew under the Bush administration, and levelled off in the Clinton era. No administration has succeeded in reducing the national debt, and I agree it needs to be done!
    brillig-nom-national-debt.gif

    (2) This is a misrepresentation of what's being offered (which isn't even clear). It is fairly clear that what has happened in the US is a market failure: ludicrously high costs and unequal outcomes. I don't see a Republican plan to reduce costs (in fact (9) seems to indicate they're happy with things).

    (3) Cap and trade is the market-based solution. And the American proposal is frankly pathetic.

    (4) I agree with this one. I think Card Check is a terrible idea.

    (5) The problem still exists --- what is the counter-proposal?

    (6) No administration in any country in any time has ever supported "defeat". It's not clear the surge strategy really worked in Iraq; it's not at all clear *anything* will work in Afghanistan (but we should try!).

    (7) Containment isn't working in Iran. Iran will have working devices very shortly!

    (icon_cool.gif Despite the fact that it's TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE with a "small government" i.e. (1)!

    (9) It's fairly clear the healthcare system is presently absolutely failing a lot of vulnerable people. Worse, despite claiming they're for "small government", it appears that the Republicans are unwilling to support rational cost-controls (i.e. requiring high-cost treatments to be effective). I think there's a lot of space for constructive Republican input into this debate, and I'm seeing little.

    (10) Although I would never carry a gun, and I consider the proliferation of guns to be one of the less endearing aspects of American society, I think local solutions are better: what works for Cleveland is totally inappropriate for rural Ohio. I actually think the Ohio law is pretty spot-on here. So I guess I agree with this one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2009 3:13 PM GMT
    OutdoorMutt saidhttp://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/11/24/some-conservatives-push-a-purity-test-for-gop-candidates/

    Conservative Republican Party activists want to withhold money from GOP candidates who stray too far from party orthodoxy.

    Ten Republican National Committee members are distributing a plan to impose a purity test calling for money to be withheld from anyone who disagrees with conservative principles on more than two of 10 core issues.

    Among the required stances: oppose President Barack Obamas health care and cap-and-trade proposals as well as his stimulus plan; reject government funding for abortion; vote no on legislation to help unions organize; and support keeping the Defense of Marriage Act.

    THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:

    (1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obamas stimulus bill;
    (2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
    (3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
    (4) We support workers right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
    (5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
    (6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
    (7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
    (8 We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
    (9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
    (10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further




    Are you surprised? hahah I'm not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2009 3:31 PM GMT
    Please note the predominance of 'what we (the republicans) are against', Hense the party of NO. What the hell are they for? Ask their leader Palin and she'll tell you republicans stand for feedom, the constitution, return to 'real conservatism' and 'common sense values/solutions' . OH !!! Well isn't that nice !!! Now please do tell --- What are you republicans for???? Where's the ideas to take our country forward? We cannot as a country move forward with strict conservatism which is against change, and won't work in a changing world environment. Until the republicans figure this out. the only way they'll win is by continued scare tactics, continued devisiveness and promoting issues to be against such as immigrants, birther movements, tea party's, knocking down every effort of proggressive proposals and such. Fear these tactics, they have afterall been working quite well, and are swinging people their way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2009 3:59 PM GMT
    Tim,

    you´re a smart guy, but you seem to be applying reason to a GOP suggestion? Rude!

    This great country, return to the values that built America, FREEDOM!, end of government control*, the American Solider! Lower taxes, protect traditional values, stop health care rationing**, stand for democracy and the dignity of the American People. The family, Land of the brave and home of the Free! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! (USA, fuck yeah***)


    *apart from matters of morality, where the government needs to control EVERYTHING that private individuals do on the basis of a religious text that only some citizens accept has that authority

    **unless it is by the insurance companies

    ***strong language not to be used in all contexts, eg church.
  • ickymuffin

    Posts: 119

    Nov 24, 2009 4:11 PM GMT
    Lostboy saidTim,

    you´re a smart guy, but you seem to be applying reason to a GOP suggestion? Rude!

    This great country, return to the values that built America, FREEDOM!, end of government control*, the American Solider! Lower taxes, protect traditional values, stop health care rationing**, stand for democracy and the dignity of the American People. The family, Land of the brave and home of the Free! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! (USA, fuck yeah***)


    *apart from matters of morality, where the government needs to control EVERYTHING that private individuals do on the basis of a religious text that only some citizens accept has that authority

    **unless it is by the insurance companies

    ***strong language not to be used in all contexts, eg church.


    I <3 you.
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    Nov 24, 2009 4:14 PM GMT
    New? Hatin' on teh gay is not new, in fact it's tried and true. How do you think Shrub won reelection in 2004? There were anti-marriage constitutional amendments on the ballot in eleven swing states that year. Nothing brings out the Republican base like the opportunity to vote against gay people for any reason...
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    Nov 24, 2009 4:21 PM GMT
    OutdoorMutt saidhttp://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/11/24/some-conservatives-push-a-purity-test-for-gop-candidates/

    Conservative Republican Party activists want to withhold money from GOP candidates who stray too far from party orthodoxy.

    Ten Republican National Committee members are distributing a plan to impose a purity test calling for money to be withheld from anyone who disagrees with conservative principles on more than two of 10 core issues.

    Among the required stances: oppose President Barack Obamas health care and cap-and-trade proposals as well as his stimulus plan; reject government funding for abortion; vote no on legislation to help unions organize; and support keeping the Defense of Marriage Act.

    THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:

    (1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obamas stimulus bill;
    (2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
    (3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
    (4) We support workers right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
    (5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
    (6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
    (7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
    (8 We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
    (9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
    (10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further







    The OP conveniently left out the operative word in the article's title which is
    "Some" Conservatives Push a ‘Purity Test’ for GOP Candidates", and this is important to point out. Obviously, in every political party there are radical activists who push for an agenda that is outside of the mainstream, and try to exclude anyone and everyone who doesn't subscribe to that agenda. Yes, perhaps "Some" are pushing for this agenda, but certainly not all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2009 4:28 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    OutdoorMutt saidhttp://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/11/24/some-conservatives-push-a-purity-test-for-gop-candidates/

    Conservative Republican Party activists want to withhold money from GOP candidates who stray too far from party orthodoxy.

    Ten Republican National Committee members are distributing a plan to impose a purity test calling for money to be withheld from anyone who disagrees with conservative principles on more than two of 10 core issues.

    Among the required stances: oppose President Barack Obamas health care and cap-and-trade proposals as well as his stimulus plan; reject government funding for abortion; vote no on legislation to help unions organize; and support keeping the Defense of Marriage Act.

    THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:

    (1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obamas stimulus bill;
    (2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
    (3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
    (4) We support workers right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
    (5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
    (6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
    (7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
    (8 We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
    (9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
    (10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further







    The OP conveniently left out the operative word in the article's title which is
    "Some" Conservatives Push a ‘Purity Test’ for GOP Candidates", and this is important to point out. Obviously, in every political party there are radical activists who push for an agenda that is outside of the mainstream, and try to exclude anyone and everyone who doesn't subscribe to that agenda. Yes, perhaps "Some" are pushing for this agenda, but certainly not all.



    You are conveniently incorrect. That is made very clear by anyone who reads the article. In fact, I quoted, and posted, "Ten Republican National Committee members". No where did I state the entire Republican party.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2009 4:28 PM GMT
    Actually curious, it does say that 10 are doing it (the implication being that they are a small group which is not the GOP as a whole). Also the agenda is so climbing up the rafters, shrine of Ronnie and Rush in the john type nutty conservative that one would assume that it were a small part of the GOP.

    Oh for the rebirth of a real "conservative" party in the USA! Something which really does articulate a different option which is COHERENT and not based on the religious right (conservatism in the USA will not recover until it stops being the bitch of the evangelical church).
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    Nov 24, 2009 5:08 PM GMT
    OutdoorMutt said

    You are conveniently incorrect. That is made very clear by anyone who reads the article. In fact, I quoted, and posted, "Ten Republican National Committee members". No where did I state the entire Republican party.



    Sorry, my bad. Admittedly, I only breezed through the article only because I honestly pay little attention to these fringe groups (Democrat or Republican) who try to get everyone to march in lock-step to their agenda or else. These groups will always be around, but they are not going to dictate for the mainstream.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2009 5:14 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    OutdoorMutt said

    You are conveniently incorrect. That is made very clear by anyone who reads the article. In fact, I quoted, and posted, "Ten Republican National Committee members". No where did I state the entire Republican party.



    Sorry, my bad. Admittedly, I only breezed through the article only because I honestly pay little attention to these fringe groups (Democrat or Republican) who try to get everyone to march in lock-step to their agenda or else. These groups will always be around, but they are not going to dictate for the mainstream.


    Are you sure about this? Has there been a change in the Repub party then? Because these fringe groups have been dictating for some time.

    And if you are claiming they have not been.... Then the universe help us all!
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Nov 24, 2009 5:16 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said



    Sorry, my bad. Admittedly, I only breezed through the article only.....These groups will always be around, but they are not going to dictate for the mainstream.


    I'm surprised you'd "scan" anything prior to discussion here Todd.... LOL

    I suppose the republicans weren't swayed by the commentary of fat
    Rush Limbaugh... who's a "fringe" by himself....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2009 5:29 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidSorry, my bad. Admittedly, I only breezed through the article only because I honestly pay little attention to these fringe groups (Democrat or Republican) who try to get everyone to march in lock-step to their agenda or else. These groups will always be around, but they are not going to dictate for the mainstream.


    I really don't think you can claim they're a fringe group, or outside the mainstream. I would certainly agree that they represent only one---a powerful---part of the Republican party otherwise, of course, there would be no need for such a "creed" document.

    CuriousJockAZ's used-car-salesman defences of the Republican party continue to amaze me by their acrobatic nature.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2009 5:38 PM GMT
    The Defense of Marriage Act which Clinton signed. Obama is against gay marriage also. I don't get why it's okay for a democrat to be against gay marriage, but not a republican?

    The voters in Washington passed the "same rights as marriage but don't call it marriage" act earlier this November, but every single "gay marriage" that has been voted on by the people has failed.

    My question.... Are you guys content with the "same rights as marriage but don't call it marriage?" or is that not enough.... it is equal rights, right?
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Nov 24, 2009 5:40 PM GMT
    Is there a coincidence that these 10 political positions are deemed a "purity" test and that there are 10 Commandments in the Bible?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2009 6:07 PM GMT
    sportsguy933 saidThe Defense of Marriage Act which Clinton signed. Obama is against gay marriage also. I don't get why it's okay for a democrat to be against gay marriage, but not a republican?

    It´s not.

    The voters in Washington passed the "same rights as marriage but don't call it marriage" act earlier this November, but every single "gay marriage" that has been voted on by the people has failed. My question.... Are you guys content with the "same rights as marriage but don't call it marriage?" or is that not enough.... it is equal rights, right?


    Yes and no: I´m not sure that the "marriage" fight is one that can be easily won in the USA in this generation. In the UK we have the same rights but the state is called "civil partnership". I think it is obtuse to refuse the benefits because of a word. Longer term it would be better to have equal rights for everyone with the same name... If you can do it straight away, even better. Actually I think marriage should not have anything to do with state control. There should be a civil partnership open to all consenting adults regardless of gender which gives the same legal rights at the federal level. Marriage should be left up to individuals and their faith groups to administer as they see best.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2009 6:57 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]southbeach1500 said[/cite]
    sportsguy933 saidThe Defense of Marriage Act which Clinton signed. Obama is against gay marriage also. I don't get why it's okay for a democrat to be against gay marriage, but not a republican?

    Because all Democrats and liberals do is good. All Republicans and conservatives do is bad. icon_rolleyes.gif

    sportsguy933 saidThe voters in Washington passed the "same rights as marriage but don't call it marriage" act earlier this November, but every single "gay marriage" that has been voted on by the people has failed.

    My question.... Are you guys content with the "same rights as marriage but don't call it marriage?" or is that not enough.... it is equal rights, right?

    They want MARRIAGE, not equal rights. It's that 60s and 70s hippie protester gene so many of them have.... They want to win on their terms and by using the term "marriage" they will continue to lose. They refuse to recognize that the term marriage has religious meaning as w

    I must be one of the "they" you refer to. For some strange reason, I believe all people should be treated equally. I guess I do not share your Republican gene. By the way, not settling for second class status got us (meaning those of us living in Vermont) equal rights, including equal marriage rights. Good luck with your second class citizenship thing.
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Nov 24, 2009 7:18 PM GMT
    I disagree with just about everything on the list, but I don't think you can just equate "retention of DOMA" with being anti-gay equality.

    By that particular measure, a Congressman could be in favor of gay marriage within their state, against all attempts at amending both the U.S. and state constitutions to define marriage in heterosexual terms only, and reject discrimination against gays in various settings and yet still pass the test if they believe that marriage should be a state-by-state issue and that controversial marriage decisions in one state should not effect another.

    Even though the end result of that position is discrimination, that would hardly have been that person's intention. Instead, they are attempting to find a balance between two opposing groups of people (both of whom are the constituents they have been elected to represent).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2009 8:00 PM GMT
    I love the terms "government-run health care." The government isn't trying to run it. It's trying to give people a cheaper way to pay for it. Stupid GOP.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2009 8:01 PM GMT
    sportsguy933 saidThe Defense of Marriage Act which Clinton signed. Obama is against gay marriage also. I don't get why it's okay for a democrat to be against gay marriage, but not a republican?

    The voters in Washington passed the "same rights as marriage but don't call it marriage" act earlier this November, but every single "gay marriage" that has been voted on by the people has failed.

    My question.... Are you guys content with the "same rights as marriage but don't call it marriage?" or is that not enough.... it is equal rights, right?


    Equal rights are just that. Either everyone gets treated the same, meaning the same rights for everyone, or no rights for anyone.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2009 8:17 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    They want MARRIAGE, not equal rights. It's that 60s and 70s hippie protester gene so many of them have.... They want to win on their terms and by using the term "marriage" they will continue to lose. They refuse to recognize that the term marriage has religious meaning as well and that is why they are meeting with so much opposition.


    Don't gerrymander around the issue and blame gays for wanting what every straight American has the right to. We ARE fighting for equal rights, to suggest we are doing anything but that is insulting.

    Referendum 71 in Washington, a move to prevent domestic partners in Washington to have all the same rights, benefits, and protections given to married couples on the state level, was fought against with the same arguments and the same support that Question 1 in Maine got and Proposition 8, and the godforsaken term "MARRIAGE" was not even involved.

    Our opponents will always be against giving us equal rights regardless of what it is called, until they die off or until we bring in more support.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2009 8:37 PM GMT
    tryandbuy said
    southbeach1500 said
    They want MARRIAGE, not equal rights. It's that 60s and 70s hippie protester gene so many of them have.... They want to win on their terms and by using the term "marriage" they will continue to lose. They refuse to recognize that the term marriage has religious meaning as well and that is why they are meeting with so much opposition.


    Don't gerrymander around the issue and blame gays for wanting what every straight American has the right to. We ARE fighting for equal rights, to suggest we are doing anything but that is insulting.

    Referendum 71 in Washington, a move to prevent domestic partners in Washington to have all the same rights, benefits, and protections given to married couples on the state level, was fought against with the same arguments and the same support that Question 1 in Maine got and Proposition 8, and the godforsaken term "MARRIAGE" was not even involved.

    Our opponents will always be against giving us equal rights regardless of what it is called, until they die off or until we bring in more support.



    Because the MARRIAGE was not involved, it passed.

    While it's true that some conservatives might now want what was passed in Washington, I think that that type of wording can be passed by the majority of the states. The religious conservatives might be against it, but the libertarian types would be for it I believe.

    I think the gay movement is maybe a little too pushy when it comes to gay marriage. Obviously our society has become more more accepting over the past 30-40 years and it will continue to do so. Eventually I believe there will be gay marriage everywhere, but I think it would have been better to incrementally push for the "marriage but not marriage" laws that protect same sex relationships. And as people become more accustomed to it, the label marriage will come.

    Im atheist, and don't really like religion... part of our society is freedom, and they have the right to believe marriage should be a man and a women. I think it's wrong to label these people bigots and all the other stuff that gets thrown out there. While bigots do exist (on both sides), the majority of these people have the belief in what marriage is which has been part of their understanding their entire lives. It really doesn't help our side to insult the opposition because it creates more animosity between us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2009 8:52 PM GMT
    And, in case you haven't seen this, Dubya, Reagan and McCain would all fail this new 'purity' test (is that a gay name or what?!?)

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/23/807338/-Who-fails-the-Republican-purity-test
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2009 8:52 PM GMT
    sportsguy933 said
    tryandbuy said
    southbeach1500 said
    They want MARRIAGE, not equal rights. It's that 60s and 70s hippie protester gene so many of them have.... They want to win on their terms and by using the term "marriage" they will continue to lose. They refuse to recognize that the term marriage has religious meaning as well and that is why they are meeting with so much opposition.


    Don't gerrymander around the issue and blame gays for wanting what every straight American has the right to. We ARE fighting for equal rights, to suggest we are doing anything but that is insulting.

    Referendum 71 in Washington, a move to prevent domestic partners in Washington to have all the same rights, benefits, and protections given to married couples on the state level, was fought against with the same arguments and the same support that Question 1 in Maine got and Proposition 8, and the godforsaken term "MARRIAGE" was not even involved.

    Our opponents will always be against giving us equal rights regardless of what it is called, until they die off or until we bring in more support.



    Because the MARRIAGE was not involved, it passed.

    While it's true that some conservatives might now want what was passed in Washington, I think that that type of wording can be passed by the majority of the states. The religious conservatives might be against it, but the libertarian types would be for it I believe.

    I think the gay movement is maybe a little too pushy when it comes to gay marriage. Obviously our society has become more more accepting over the past 30-40 years and it will continue to do so. Eventually I believe there will be gay marriage everywhere, but I think it would have been better to incrementally push for the "marriage but not marriage" laws that protect same sex relationships. And as people become more accustomed to it, the label marriage will come.

    Im atheist, and don't really like religion... part of our society is freedom, and they have the right to believe marriage should be a man and a women. I think it's wrong to label these people bigots and all the other stuff that gets thrown out there. While bigots do exist (on both sides), the majority of these people have the belief in what marriage is which has been part of their understanding their entire lives. It really doesn't help our side to insult the opposition because it creates more animosity between us.


    I can assure you any proposed legislation that called for the same rights as marriage but under a different name would still be nixed. The Republican Party as a collective, and even some Democrats, do not want to see gays have equal rights. This isn't a simple issue of semantics. I'm telling you it isn't. The sooner some of you more right-leaning queers understand this, the better off we'll all be for it.