3
   

GOP weighs anti-gay plank for '04 platform

 
 
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 07:44 pm
GOP weighs anti-gay plank for '04 platform
by Christopher Curtis
Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network
Posted September 23, 2003

Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said in an interview published Tuesday that gay activists are guilty of bigotry, and he suggested the GOP will promote the traditional notion of marriage as a part of its 2004 platform.

Gillespie said this "bigotry" comes in the form of gay activists using the government to protect their lifestyle.

"I accept people for who they are -- and love them," Gillespie told the Washington Times newspaper. "That doesn't mean I have to agree or turn my back on the tenets of my faith when it comes to homosexuality. I think when people say, 'Well, no. That's not enough that you accept me for who I am, you have to agree with -- and condone -- my choice,' that, to me, is religious bigotry, and I believe that's intolerant. I think they are the ones that are crossing the line here."

Gillespie added that the Republican Party is considering a constitutional marriage amendment -- which has already been introduced in the House -- as a key part of the Republican platform for the upcoming election. The GOP leadership hopes that by forbidding states from recognizing gay marriages they can energize conservative voters.

Across the country Republicans are rallying against same-sex marriage. On Monday, California state Sen. Pete Knight sued to stop a wide-ranging domestic partner bill from becoming law. Knight claims the bill violates Proposition 22, the law he authored to define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman. A hearing on the injunction is scheduled for October.

But Gillespie said the deciding factor for the GOP plank may be a ruling from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, to determine whether the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages violates the 14th Amendment rights to equal protection.

In his Washington Times interview, Gillespie said a win for gay couples in Massachusetts could force other states to recognize gay marriage. "Does the 'full faith and credit' clause of the Constitution mean that if Massachusetts ordains gay marriages, then someone can go there (to marry), then move back to Virginia or some other state that does not recognize homosexual marriages and that state would be compelled to recognize such marriages?"

Gay political groups quickly responded to Gillespie's remarks on Tuesday.

"The last thing the GOP needs to do is to pattern the 2004 Republican Convention after the 1992 Houston Convention which started a culture war in America," said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans. "Log Cabin exists today because of that debacle in Texas, led by Patrick J. Buchanan, which led to the defeat of President George H.W. Bush."

David Noble, the executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, also criticized Gillespie: "Suggesting that someone is a bigot because they want the legal right to visit a dying partner in the hospital is wrong, and frankly, disgusting."

In order to add an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a resolution must first be passed by two-thirds of each chamber of Congress. It must then be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures, who have up to seven years to approve any such amendment.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 5,350 • Replies: 87
No top replies

 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 07:47 pm
Gillespie:
"I accept people for who they are, unless they are sodomite scum who deserve to burn in hell."
Well he's not getting on my " pinch a conservative and make them giggle" list! Confused
0 Replies
 
Olen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 11:10 pm
I vote for the original intent of marriage to retained. It is a contract and sworn vows between a man and a woman to be permanently committed to each other, and provide a solid unit in which to raise, train and educate offspring.
Any deviation from that,is unconventional, and undesirable and is to be avoided.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 11:23 pm
I think people of good will can disagree on what marriage in a church means. On the other hand, marriage as a certain kind of partnership in the social community at large... I think in time the larger community will accept marriages of people who choose to be married.

Whether the vote because of this goes to Republicans or Dems or Libertarians or Independents in the US now, I don't follow the matter enough to predict.
0 Replies
 
Olen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 11:44 pm
Gays could be joined by a partnership contract. That wouldn't specify gender or number of people in the unit, or company. That would in no way resemble a marriage contract, or require sworn vows of commitment. That might work, and not interfere with the institution of marriage and it's traditions.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 11:55 pm
How could the Republicans even think of such a thing? Political pragmitism would not allow it.
Since at least 20% of the voting public is Gay, how could the Republicans ever consider such a move?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 05:27 am
Italgato wrote:
How could the Republicans even think of such a thing? Political pragmitism would not allow it.
Since at least 20% of the voting public is Gay, how could the Republicans ever consider such a move?

?
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 06:45 am
Italgato does not have a mind for numbers.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 06:57 am
What do you think the % of gays is? I bet Italgato is not so far off. The number of openly gay people may be lower...

Anyhoo-- <surprise, surprise> this issue will continue to evolve until gays have equal rights. They can all get hitched at the U.U. churches.

Men/women marriages are no more lasting or sacred than unions marriages between same sex couples. If there is a religious/spiritual inconsistency/sin, that is between the minister, who performs the marriage--the individuals getting married, and their God/god. The rest of us should back out of it, IMO.

Allowing these people the right to marry doesn't have to signify our personal approval-- It just means we won't expend any energy denying them equal rights under the law.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 07:13 am
Since marriage has become in many instances an after thought and is very seldom permanent why not allow anyone who wants to marry. Till death do us part has been amended to read until we find someone else. The bonus that comes along with gay marriage is there is very little chance of single parenthood.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 08:04 am
I think the number is 10% of the total population is gay or bisexual. The voting public though..... I dunno. Maybe waaaay more gays vote than their counterparts.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 08:16 am
I should also note that gays are less likely to be involved in criminal activity the the general population.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 08:35 am
au1929 wrote:
I should also note that gays are less likely to be involved in criminal activity the the general population.

Except for all those gay crimes they commit down in Texas.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 08:38 am
Gay crimes--committed in the name of LUV!
I think littleK has a point. I bet gays probably do vote disproportionately more than non-gays.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 08:42 am
I bet they do as well, Sofia. But, I dunno if they'd be upwards of 20% of the voting pop. as Italgato stated.
0 Replies
 
the prince
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 08:45 am
I find the above discussion bhery bhery phunny !!
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 08:48 am
Olen wrote:
I vote for the original intent of marriage to retained. It is a contract and sworn vows between a man and a woman to be permanently committed to each other, and provide a solid unit in which to raise, train and educate offspring.
Any deviation from that,is unconventional, and undesirable and is to be avoided.


And this is in place where, Olen?

Surely you are not suggesting that straights who marry consider their vows to be binding???

Over 50% end up very non-permanent.

And as for "raise, train, and educate offspring" -- well, who is to say that straights do a better job than gays at that?
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 08:49 am
Gautum--
Illuminate the phunny, please! Love to hear your perspective.

(20% may be an exaggeration... I'm curious. Going to see if I can find a stat.)
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 08:49 am
pththt~
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 09:23 am
I see it as giving me twice the chance to get married! Wink
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » GOP weighs anti-gay plank for '04 platform
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/14/2019 at 07:25:24