Republicans Sign Brief in Support of Gay Marriage, what say u Too Hot Conservatives?

[gator996]

Well conservatives...where are you on this issue?

Some establishment types are "coming out" in favor of gay marriage rights....

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us...anted=all&_r=0

Republicans Sign Brief in Support of Gay Marriage

WASHINGTON — Dozens of prominent Republicans — including top advisers to former President George W. Bush, four former governors and two members of Congress — have signed a legal brief arguing that gay people have a constitutional right to marry, a position that amounts to a direct challenge to Speaker John A. Boehner and reflects the civil war in the party since the November election.

The document will be submitted this week to the Supreme Court in support of a suit seeking to strike down Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative barring same-sex marriage, and all similar bans. The court will hear back-to-back arguments next month in that case and another pivotal gay rights case that challenges the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The Proposition 8 case already has a powerful conservative supporter: Theodore B. Olson, the former solicitor general under Mr. Bush and one of the suit’s two lead lawyers. The amicus, or friend-of-the-court, brief is being filed with Mr. Olson’s blessing. It argues, as he does, that same-sex marriage promotes family values by allowing children of gay couples to grow up in two-parent homes, and that it advances conservative values of “limited government and maximizing individual freedom.”

Legal analysts said the brief had the potential to sway conservative justices as much for the prominent names attached to it as for its legal arguments. The list of signers includes a string of Republican officials and influential thinkers — 75 as of Monday evening — who are not ordinarily associated with gay rights advocacy, including some who are speaking out for the first time and others who have changed their previous positions.

Among them are Meg Whitman, who supported Proposition 8 when she ran for California governor; Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York; Stephen J. Hadley, a Bush national security adviser; Carlos Gutierrez, a commerce secretary to Mr. Bush; James B. Comey, a top Bush Justice Department official; David A. Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s first budget director; and Deborah Pryce, a former member of the House Republican leadership from Ohio who is retired from Congress.





At the same time, CPAC is blocking GOProud & log cabin republicans from being official sponsors of the event causing some conservatives to back out...

http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/02/...-over-goproud/

S.E. Cupp backs out of CPAC over GOProud
Conservative pundit and contributor to TheBlaze TV S.E. Cupp has announced that she will not be speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference this year, citing the same reason as fellow MSNBC-er Chris Hayes: GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans, both LGBT conservative groups, are not allowed to sponsor the event.

“As a proponent of gay rights, CPAC’s decision to sideline GOProud and Log Cabin Republicans makes me increasingly uncomfortable,” she said on Tuesday. “These are conservatives who have had to work doubly hard to advance conservative messages and we should be rewarding them with positions of prominence.”

Cupp said that while she has had a close relationship with CPAC in the past and considers the event a highlight of her year, she refuses to be involved in a conference that shuns such important advocates for conservative ideals.

“I have been thinking about this a lot, and I know a lot of people on my side of the aisle have been struggling with this for some time now, too,” Cupp said. “I’ve been scheduled to speak at CPAC this year, and I just don’t think I can until this issue is reconciled and figured out.”

[GatorAvatar]

It's only a matter of time before we all support gay rights.

[madgator]

who cares.....

[gator996]

Where have all of the social conservatives...the religious right gone?




A break from "values" like this in fiscal issues and the republican mob would throw these bums out...

...and in the not too recent past many here were outraged at the attack on Christianity & marriage.


Now no one cares?


Interesting anyway though, the "establishment" GOP sees potential future votes and the extremists are the ones busy kicking them out of CPAC.



Weird.

[gatorman_07732]

nope never

[MichiGator2002]

Are we sure that they aren't coming out in favor of not being whined at? Yes, children, you can watch TV for 15 more minutes, but then it is bedtime.

[LittleBlueLW]

Invalid question from the OP. Republican does not equate to being conservative, by a long stretch.

In any event, let the whiney bitches have their way. There is no room left for social conservatism. If you disapprove, you hate and are a bigot. May as well quit fighting it.

Politicians kowtowing to a minority group for votes. Nothing new.

[gator996]

That's the spirit...If you can't be a bigot might as well cave....

The true "conservatives" don't seem to be doing any better my friend....

Keep running those loons who are social conservatives and see if the extreme right can survive on its own.

[tegator80]

Originally Posted by gator996

Where have all of the social conservatives...the religious right gone?




A break from "values" like this in fiscal issues and the republican mob would throw these bums out...

...and in the not too recent past many here were outraged at the attack on Christianity & marriage.


Now no one cares?


Interesting anyway though, the "establishment" GOP sees potential future votes and the extremists are the ones busy kicking them out of CPAC.



Weird.

Sorry that you needed to post that being a christian zealot is the same thing as being conservative. It shows that you don't have the mental skill of thinking for yourself and just let the MSM tell you what a conservative is. I will make a pact with you: I will try my best to marginalize the zealots in the GOP if you do the same with the Socialists, Greenies and traditional black power structure (see Sharpton, Jackson, et al) from making a mockery of and bankrupting our country. Or better yet, let's both agree that the two-party system is an abject failure and make efforts to rebuke their current power structures.

Except for a psychological trauma such as sexual abuse in youth, being homosexual is an inherent trait. Where I agree with the "religious right" is how do you distinguish marriage, which is encouraged in order to develop civil responsibility, from all of the kooks who want to marry their pets or whatever and obtain the same benefits? I have nothing against anyone's happiness but if we are going to endorse marriage as a social good then we need to be specific about what it is and that takes real effort. So adding homosexuals into that definition needs to be done with discernment.

Every time we just wave at a problem by passing a new law, we end up making multiple problems as a result. That is where liberals get it wrong...ALL OF THE TIME.

[Dreamliner]

Opposition to men-having-sex-with-other-men marriage has always smacked of 'government marriage for me, but not for thee." Come on, while men-having-sex-with-other-men marriage may not be Biblical, it is quintessentially American. The conservative cannot argue that it is not.

[gator996]

Originally Posted by tegator80

Sorry that you needed to post that being a christian zealot is the same thing as being conservative. It shows that you don't have the mental skill of thinking for yourself and just let the MSM tell you what a conservative is. I will make a pact with you: I will try my best to marginalize the zealots in the GOP if you do the same with the Socialists, Greenies and traditional black power structure (see Sharpton, Jackson, et al) from making a mockery of and bankrupting our country. [/b]Or better yet, let's both agree that the two-party system is an abject failure and make efforts to rebuke their current power structures.[b]

Except for a psychological trauma such as sexual abuse in youth, being homosexual is an inherent trait. Where I agree with the "religious right" is how do you distinguish marriage, which is encouraged in order to develop civil responsibility, from all of the kooks who want to marry their pets or whatever and obtain the same benefits? I have nothing against anyone's happiness but if we are going to endorse marriage as a social good then we need to be specific about what it is and that takes real effort. So adding homosexuals into that definition needs to be done with discernment.

Every time we just wave at a problem by passing a new law, we end up making multiple problems as a result. That is where liberals get it wrong...ALL OF THE TIME.

Many believe the mockery & bankrupting of this country has been conducted by the political right....


And is Civil Rights legislation a place where liberals have gotten it wrong ...ALL OF THE TIME?


Would you prefer an America still with Jim Crow? Seperate...unequal...

Racially preferential in its laws and social structure?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by gator996

That's the spirit...If you can't be a bigot might as well cave....

The true "conservatives" don't seem to be doing any better my friend....

Keep running those loons who are social conservatives and see if the extreme right can survive on its own.

Throwing that B word nonchalantly again are you. It really demeans any point you may want to discuss and more looking for a pissing contest. Not sure why the mods even allow this stuff because it adds nothing.

[108]

you don't have to support of believe in gay marriage to know that they have the constitutional right to marry

there is no substantive legal argument to be made here that should allow our constitution to discriminate here

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by 108

you don't have to support of believe in gay marriage to know that they have the constitutional right to marry

there is no substantive legal argument to be made here that should allow our constitution to discriminate here

There is no constitutional right because the constitution is silent on the matter.

[108]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

There is no constitutional right because the constitution is silent on the matter.

just because it doesn't specifically talk about gay marriage doesn't mean its silent on the rights of citizens

and if is silent on the matter of marriage, then there is no constitutional right for heterosexuals either

government either gets out of the business of marriage all together, or allows both

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by 108

just because it doesn't specifically talk about gay marriage doesn't mean its silent on the rights of citizens

and if is silent on the matter of marriage, then there is no constitutional right for heterosexuals either

government either gets out of the business of marriage all together, or allows both

When the constitution is silent on a particular matter, the issue is supposed to be left to the states and people.

[Tim85]

Originally Posted by tegator80

Sorry that you needed to post that being a christian zealot is the same thing as being conservative. It shows that you don't have the mental skill of thinking for yourself and just let the MSM tell you what a conservative is. I will make a pact with you: I will try my best to marginalize the zealots in the GOP if you do the same with the Socialists, Greenies and traditional black power structure (see Sharpton, Jackson, et al) from making a mockery of and bankrupting our country. Or better yet, let's both agree that the two-party system is an abject failure and make efforts to rebuke their current power structures.

Except for a psychological trauma such as sexual abuse in youth, being homosexual is an inherent trait. Where I agree with the "religious right" is how do you distinguish marriage, which is encouraged in order to develop civil responsibility, from all of the kooks who want to marry their pets or whatever and obtain the same benefits? I have nothing against anyone's happiness but if we are going to endorse marriage as a social good then we need to be specific about what it is and that takes real effort. So adding homosexuals into that definition needs to be done with discernment.

Every time we just wave at a problem by passing a new law, we end up making multiple problems as a result. That is where liberals get it wrong...ALL OF THE TIME.

Hear, hear! Truths being spoken!

[gator996]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Throwing that B word nonchalantly again are you. It really demeans any point you may want to discuss and more looking for a pissing contest. Not sure why the mods even allow this stuff because it adds nothing.

I'm not throwing it around nonchalantly...

Used with all of the purpose the word intends.

[T3goalie]

Divorce lawyers are full of glee. A new client base...

Curious to know the projected decrease on tax revenue and increase on benefits.

[gator996]

Originally Posted by 108

just because it doesn't specifically talk about gay marriage doesn't mean its silent on the rights of citizens

and if is silent on the matter of marriage, then there is no constitutional right for heterosexuals either

government either gets out of the business of marriage all together, or allows both

Yes, that's why Ted Olson is involved...the right to "liberty" and equal treatment

You've stated the conservative pro-marriage argument nicely