This quote within Jon Rauch's post jumped out of me: "Another 37 percent said they thought the party should avoid the issue [of gay marriage]."
And there you have it: a capsule summary of the problem very small minorities have in a democracy. The majority already has all the relationship rights they want or need. It's easy for them to simply "avoid" the issue of same-sex marriage.
We don't have that luxury, but only because we're the only ones directly affected by the lack of equal rights. We don't get a day off from inequality, and if we were to avoid the issue, it would mean giving up on ourselves.
Does anyone really think, after we've come this far, that we're going to call it quits? Well over a third of these Republicans may want the whole issue to just go away, but that's because the status quo works for them. It doesn't work for us, and it is a supreme goal of this movement to make sure that heterosexuals truly understand that fundamental fact.
18 Comments for “GOP – Ignorance Is Bliss”
posted by Rob on
Who cares what they think? The tide is closing on them. Hopefully from the ruins, the Republican Party of Barry Goldwater, Dwight Eisenhower, Ron Paul; the party of entrepreneurship, individual liberty, pragmatism, and academia can remerge from that terrible coma the party has been through.
BTW, has anyone here noticed how antigun nuts use the same vaccous arguments against guns as religious wingnuts do against non-abstinence-only school programs? The future GOP should apologize for that platform and stick its nose out of it.
posted by Bobby on
“Who cares what they think? The tide is closing on them.”
—No, they are a huge force, millions of people committed to a cause. Give them a politically incorrect candidate like Sarah Pallin and they will support her.
It is RINO’s and moderates like John McCain that are on their way out. Our party cannot become liberal, it would make us meaningless. Think about it, this is the party that liberated the slaves and opposes affirmative action, that may seems contradictory to some, but for us, freedom is enough. Once you’re free, you don’t need preferential treatment, with gay marriage the solution seems to be to live it to the individual states, there’s no rush for a constitutional amendment because it’s a radical step and most republicans don’t like radical solutions.
posted by Rob on
—No, they are a huge force, millions of people committed to a cause. Give them a politically incorrect candidate like Sarah Pallin and they will support her.
…and millions more are against such cause. It’s a generational issue. The tide is closing on them because:
—No, they are a huge force, millions of people committed to a cause. Give them a politically incorrect candidate like Sarah Pallin and they will support her.
It is RINO’s and moderates like John McCain that are on their way out. Our party cannot become liberal, it would make us meaningless. Think about it, this is the party that liberated the slaves and opposes affirmative action, that may seems contradictory to some, but for us, freedom is enough. Once you’re free, you don’t need preferential treatment, with gay marriage the solution seems to be to live it to the individual states, there’s no rush for a constitutional amendment because it’s a radical step and most republicans don’t like radical solutions.
Don’t forget, it was also the party that underminded state’s rights and gave an abundance more power to the federal government which still continues today since the time of Lincoln and Grant. Despite, the Dems controlling the house of representatives in 1984, the Repub senate passed and good ole Reagan signed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, dangling federal funds for highways to states that have their minimum legal drinking age at 21. Then there was the party shift of the 60s when the dems decided to support the Civil Rights Act. That left many of the social conservative base fumed up, particulary in the south. Guess where they went? Straight into the GOP embraced by Nixon. So much for the party of individual liberty post, AND pre Civil Rights Act. So no, they’re just as bad as the Dems, if not worse due to their core hypocrisy.
posted by Dan S. on
The Religious Right’s influence may be on the decline, but their ability to rally around the gay marriage issue cannot be underestimated. Evangelicals, Catholics and other religious conservatives can organize very quickly when they feel the courts have circumvented the will of the majority. Persuading hearts and minds in the court of public opinion is no small challenge, but it is more likely to produce lasting gains.
posted by Bobby on
“The majority of the younger generations personally know someone who’s gay, lesbian, bi etc.”
—So they’ll support gay rights, however, they do not support stores saying “happy holidays” instead of “merry Christmas,” they do not support wasteful government spending, they do not support political correctness. Just because they are gay friendly doesn’t mean they’re progressive friendly. Even among people who voted for Obama, not all of them are radical leftwigners, some simply wanted change, some thought McCain was too old. Don’t worry, we’ll get the independents and moderates back WITHOUT becoming independent or moderate. Obama didn’t become pro-life to attract the catholic vote, why should we become moderate to get the moderates?
“Secular arguments against same-sex marriage, much less homosexuality is wearing thin.”
—Yes, but so is political correctness. There’s lots of young people at those tea parties, don’t underestimate them. Liberals had appeal when they where the outcasts, now that they’re the mainstream, it is our side that has appeal.
“Despite, the Dems controlling the house of representatives in 1984, the Repub senate passed and good ole Reagan signed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, dangling federal funds for highways to states that have their minimum legal drinking age at 21.”
—That was a huge mistake. I don’t deny the GOP makes mistakes.
“So much for the party of individual liberty post, AND pre Civil Rights Act. So no, they’re just as bad as the Dems, if not worse due to their core hypocrisy.”
—Two words for you, George Wallace, the DEMOCRATIC governor of Alabama. Either way, revising ancient history is useless, that’s like becoming a democrat because you didn’t like Lincoln’s government abuse during reconstruction.
Besides, the tides aren’t really turning, voters have defeated pro-gay marriage props in all states.
And the left continues to shoot itself in the foot.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517137,00.html
posted by Rob on
—So they’ll support gay rights, however, they do not support stores saying “happy holidays” instead of “merry Christmas,” they do not support wasteful government spending, they do not support political correctness. Just because they are gay friendly doesn’t mean they’re progressive friendly. Even among people who voted for Obama, not all of them are radical leftwigners, some simply wanted change, some thought McCain was too old. Don’t worry, we’ll get the independents and moderates back WITHOUT becoming independent or moderate. Obama didn’t become pro-life to attract the catholic vote, why should we become moderate to get the moderates?
So what is the point then? Who cares if they’re progressive or conservative? So long as they’re genuinely gay friendly, there’s no issue. There’s a lot I don’t agree with liberals, such as their position on guns and immigration. As for the holiday fiasco, I think Western countries should reflect not that they’re “judeo-christian” nations, but nations based upon Christian AND Humanist values like Geert Wilders has clearly stated. Even a staunch atheist such as Richard Dawkins celebrates Christmas as Christmas.
—Two words for you, George Wallace, the DEMOCRATIC governor of Alabama. Either way, revising ancient history is useless, that’s like becoming a democrat because you didn’t like Lincoln’s government abuse during reconstruction.
There is no revisionism. You think Wallace supported his federal party’s position on Civil Rights?? Why did former Democrats Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms switched parties? Goldwater didn’t like that bunch at all, but Nixon adored their influence. Face it Bobby, there’s a long trail connecting the segregationist social conservatives of yonder, to today’s antigay social conservatives, and that trail crosses between party lines. Sure there’s some that have sticked to party loyalty, like Robert Byrd, and of all people Fred Phelps, but they’ve either cleaned up their act or gotten marginalized.
Besides, the tides aren’t really turning, voters have defeated pro-gay marriage props in all states.
They’ve shown to be short term spikes towards court orders. Most of these amendments will be revoked in a generation from now. These states that have super amendments barring any recognition are going to have thougher times attracting business that want to retain their gay and lesbian talent.
And the left continues to shoot itself in the foot.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517137,00.html
I couldn’t care less about what a tart from the west coast thinks.
posted by Bobby on
“So what is the point then? Who cares if they’re progressive or conservative? So long as they’re genuinely gay friendly, there’s no issue.”
—The point is I’m sick and tired of being told that we republicans must change to attract voters. We don’t have to change, the American people like to experiment, they voted for Obama because it was a novelty voting for an articulate black guy, fine, in four or eight years the GOP will come back with a conservative Indian, woman, or even a charismatic white guy and they’ll vote for him/her.
We’re not ignorant, Barrack Obama professing “mea culpa” in front of the entire world is ignorant. Barrack Obama signing a 5.2 billion volunteer bill (Americorp) is reckless and hypocritical after promising fiscal responsibility. Barrack is making mistake after mistake after mistake.
“I couldn’t care less about what a tart from the west coast thinks.”
—You should care, ever heard the expression “death by a thousand cuts?” That’s the nature of politics and democrats are cutting America piece by piece, eventually this country will wake up and throw them out!
http://whatdemocratsbelieve.com/
posted by Mike in Houston on
37% want to ignore the issue in hopes that it will go away….
As I pointed out to a co-worker (several years ago) during some high drama discussions about our company extending domestic partnership benefits: If you really want to stop hearing about gay marriage and GLBT civil rights, then stop standing in the way of equality. You’ll still be surrounded by the same gay people, but instead of having to fight for equality, we’ll go back to concentrating on raising the kids, paying the bills and grousing about work like everyone else.
posted by Bobby on
Mike, I found this comment on a blog:
“As a libertarian I have no beef with gay rights, or the right of anyone to “marry” anyone they choose… but judging from what has happened in both Europe and Canada, the “price” we must pay for gays to obtain these rights includes the loss of freedoms of speech, conscience, religion and association. I won’t pay this price, ever. This cost is being foisted upon us by the political left, for reasons more related to power than liberty; there is no reason that I can fathom that gay rights can’t coexist with any of the above named fundamental rights. The hate that spews from segments of the gay community is counter-productive to their stated goals.”
How do you respond to this guy? He’s absolutely right, there are cases of people that have gone to jail for anti-gay “hate” speech, there was a case in Luxembourg where a gay man who wanted to be a priest at the state church sued and won, conservative speakers can’t even give a speech without leftwing protesters causing major damage.
posted by esurience on
Bobby,
In the US we have much more powerful free speech and religious freedom protections. Comparisons to Europe aren’t valid. And this guy isn’t a libertarian unless he believes in freedom for everyone.
posted by John on
Bobby: To give an example of what esurience posted, when has the Catholic Church been forced by the government to ordain women as pricests or marry persons who are divorced? The correct answer is “never” in the United States.
posted by esurience on
Bobby,
Other thoughts I don’t have too much time to expand on:
1) The merit of an issue shouldn’t be judged by a fringe group that also supports that issue. That would be like judging the merits of the “tea party” movement based on some signs that some people carried at such events, comparing Obama to Hitler and such. Such a tactic is very popular among people like Michelle Malkin, who likes to do exposes about fringe groups within a certain movement, but I noticed when she posted pictures of tea party events, she didn’t include signs like that 🙂
2) He’s essentially saying that gays should be treated as collateral damage in the war for freedom of thought and religion. I think it’s really reprehensible to have such a view. Freedom means freedom for everyone, no one should be treated as expendable to the cause.
3) These issues don’t really have anything to do with marriage itself. Instead, they have to do with anti-discrimination laws and the growing acceptance of homosexuality itself. Taking his argument to the extreme, what he’s saying is that homosexuality shouldn’t be accepted, in fact it should probably be oppressed by force, because to do otherwise might cause a tension between religious freedom and other individual freedoms.
posted by Bobby on
Esurience and John, you have good arguments but people are afraid.
“That would be like judging the merits of the “tea party” movement based on some signs that some people carried at such events, comparing Obama to Hitler and such.”
—True, but did you see how CNN called the protestors rightwingers? Did you see the reporter attacking the man she was questioning?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOrPzVECSjo
“He’s essentially saying that gays should be treated as collateral damage in the war for freedom of thought and religion. I think it’s really reprehensible to have such a view.”
—Then the gay community needs to get their act together, because America is full of guys like him, guys who believe in fairness but fear radical gays.
“Taking his argument to the extreme, what he’s saying is that homosexuality shouldn’t be accepted”
—He didn’t say that, and he didn’t mean that. The erosion of freedom is taken step by steps, just like gun control, first they register your guns, then they take them away. The left has been inconsistent in their support of freedom, they support freedom for certain things like same-sex marriage, smoking pot, burning the American flag. But they don’t support freedom for hate speech (Tancredo), smoking, and any mention of religion in the public square.
Michelle Malkin wrote a brilliant article about it here:
Civility and Tolerance in the Age of Obama
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=47002
I think the gay community needs to be a lot more self-critical instead of always pointing the finger.
posted by esurience on
Another thought (they just keep coming!): For Republicans or conservatives who only weakly oppose marriage equality, they should consider the damage to their party and ideology that is being done by being defined in opposition to such a polarizing issue.
When people become single-issue voters, they’re essentially giving their political representatives a pass on other issues of importance. For conservatives who believe the Republican party has been going astray of many of its ideals (particularly on spending, what the tea party movement is about), they should consider that it would be easier to hold Republicans to account if this polarizing issue wasn’t in the foreground of debate.
The easiest way to get rid of the polarization is to stop fighting against equality. In Massachusetts, support for marriage equality was only at 40% at the time of their Supreme Court decision, but after 6 years of marriage equality, support is resting comfortably at 60%.
posted by Rob on
—The point is I’m sick and tired of being told that we republicans must change to attract voters. We don’t have to change, the American people like to experiment, they voted for Obama because it was a novelty voting for an articulate black guy, fine, in four or eight years the GOP will come back with a conservative Indian, woman, or even a charismatic white guy and they’ll vote for him/her.
After all this bullshit I’ve highlighted, you’re still partisan?
—You should care, ever heard the expression “death by a thousand cuts?” That’s the nature of politics and democrats are cutting America piece by piece, eventually this country will wake up and throw them out!
No they won’t. They’ve gone far too complacent for that. Sheeps don’t tend to have a strong bite. There only possible way you can actually get them really fumed up is if you reestablish conscription, but that won’t likely happen due to political and mercinary company interests.
posted by Bobby on
“After all this bullshit I’ve highlighted, you’re still partisan?”
—I vote on the basis of ideology, I have more in common with republicans than democrats, so I vote republican.
If the republicans become a bunch of moderate pansies, I’m simply not going to bother voting, and neither will millions of Americans.
“you can actually get them really fumed up is if you reestablish conscription,”
—That’s an important issue, but it’s not the only issue. If the government raises gasoline taxes, if utility bills skyrocket because of the cap and trade bill, if government keeps passing measures that directly affect the average American, and if the economy doesn’t improve, Obama will be a one term president.
Nobody wants to bring back the draft, the left hates war and fights agaisnt JROTC programs in public schools and the right (which includes the arm forces since 85% of them are republicans) loves the idea of an all volunteer military.
posted by Rob on
—I vote on the basis of ideology, I have more in common with republicans than democrats, so I vote republican.
Really? So you support undermining individual rights and advancing corporate welfare? If you trully vote for which partyhad the most common ideology, I’d think you’d vote Libertarian considering that you disaprove of social conservatives, even to the point of decriminalizing prostitution.
—That’s an important issue, but it’s not the only issue. If the government raises gasoline taxes, if utility bills skyrocket because of the cap and trade bill, if government keeps passing measures that directly affect the average American, and if the economy doesn’t improve, Obama will be a one term president.
Which would be against Obama’s and the lower-middle class interests. I doubt Congress will raise gasoline taxes.
Nobody wants to bring back the draft, the left hates war and fights agaisnt JROTC programs in public schools and the right (which includes the arm forces since 85% of them are republicans) loves the idea of an all volunteer military.
Exactly, which is against the establishment’s insterests. Keep the people complacents with bread and circus.
posted by Bobby on
“Really? So you support undermining individual rights and advancing corporate welfare?”
—How are republicans undermining individual rights? We’re not screaming hate speech and breaking windows when Michael Moore gives a speech on campus.
“If you trully vote for which partyhad the most common ideology, I’d think you’d vote Libertarian considering that you disaprove of social conservatives, even to the point of decriminalizing prostitution.”
—The libertarian party has no chance of winning, I’d rather vote republican. Besides, republicans believe in states rights, which means each state can choose their own social values, such as Nevada decriminalizing prostitution in 2 counties.
“Which would be against Obama’s and the lower-middle class interests. I doubt Congress will raise gasoline taxes.”
—The environmental movement is virtually unopposed in the mainstream media. I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama demanded sacrifices from all of us to “save the planet.” In fact, there’s a youtube video of him warning his supporters that the cap and trade bill will make utility costs skyrocket.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLK-U8kggFk
“Exactly, which is against the establishment’s insterests. Keep the people complacents with bread and circus.”
—Well, we know what happened to the Roman empire, at one point their expenses where so out of control that they where forced to raise taxes, which caused major economic harm.
So let’s be fair, yes, republicans aren’t free of sin, they have made mistakes, during the Bush administration, they spent a lot. But they did lower taxes and capital gains which for 7 years improved the economy, created more jobs, and allowed the government to collect more taxes.
Obama’s expenditures are making Bush look thrifty! $10 billion dollars a year in Iraq is cheap compared to more than $400 billion in bailouts and the trillion dollar recovery package.
Did you hear about the Americorps bill? Why are we paying $1.3 billion dollars so people can volunteer? This is like your neighbor going to Las Vegas, losing $10,000, and then raising your taxes to make up for his loses.