The GOP's slow assimilation of Gay Rights as a party platform

I suspect the GOP know that being against marriage equality is, in the long run, a losing platform in national politics. I dont think they are planning on changing their official stance any time in the next year or so, but I do suspect they have plans to change the storyline over the next 4 years or so. And it makes sense. They already have th social conservative vote all wrapped up. But now they have to reframe the issue and make it one about 'freedom' of choice.

What do you think, ATS? Will it pay off politically for the GOP to slowly accept and absorb the 'equality' issue in terms of same sex couples and marriage?

THIS ISNT MEANT AS A DISCUSSION ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE BEING RIGHT OR WRONG. It's an attempt at a discussion about if its advantageous for the GOP to begin to be more 'pro equality', when looking at the shifting demographics in american politics.

Anyway, in line with that idea, here's an ad campaign running in Washington state at the moment, featuring Republicans discussing their support for the Freedom of choosing who you marry.

It'll pay off quicker than a dirty dealer in Vegas IMO. This issue costs a lot of votes I think. And believe it or not...I do know right leaning, gop loving, gay folks. Not a lot. But a few. O.k. only 2. But still.

There are those of us who feel marriage may be over rated and why not let the gay folks join in on all this fun and pleasure.

But seriously, even though it is something a lot of us may or may not agree with....most of us can agree that they deserve the same things we get. Let them be miserable with the rest of us married folks!

It is very likely that a move like this would initially cause an outcry by some, but I do honestly think they would make the votes back up plus some.

Sorry but I bet they are purged from the party just wait and see.

The last video is great to hear a Republican practice what they preach about freedom and liberty.

One party coughs, the other develops a cold.

Not surprising that they would be moving towards the majority's view on the subject. Even the religious are coming about to the idea that same sex marriage doesn't threaten their marriages..

Either way; at least the GOP aren't just pandering to the minority for votes this November. Then again they do pander to that other pesky bunch of evangelicals.

Almost forgot they are the same people for a minute. Funny how propaganda works..

~Tenth

The GOP is already a worthless political party, they would only be making themselves more so. But then again I expect nothing less from unprincipled political hacks living in a democratic society. Whatever the majority says makes it right. Freedom today will mean something entirely different in the next 10 years. We are a nation built upon sand... and all things built upon sand inevitably have the same conclusion.

Originally posted by Misoir
The GOP is already a worthless political party, they would only be making themselves more so.

Beginning to be more open to 'equality' in terms of 'gay marriage' will make them worthless? How so? Can you explain? I would think it would make them more viable in the future. I think the GOP are currently undergoing some serious re-branding in time for the 2016 elections, and this may be part of that 're branding' as a centrist party, once again (like GW's 'compassionate conservatism).

I think their veering to the far right in terms of social issues in the past 3 years will ultimately hurt them, in the long run, and they know it.

reply to post by stanguilles7


I said it would make them more worthless as a party, not that they would lose any support for this decision. Worthless in this argument means less attached to the eternal, objective truths and more aligned with the Modernist age. If you cannot stand by the convictions of defending the truth - then you are worthless.

Any respectable person would stand by their convictions if the whole world insulted, ridiculed, attacked, or shunned them. But in politics there are no respectable people; just more panderers trying to score some votes. If the mob says "jump!" they say "how high?"

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

I said it would make them more worthless as a party, not that they would lose any support for this decision. Worthless in this argument means less attached to the eternal, objective truths and more aligned with the Modernist age. If you cannot stand by the convictions of defending the truth - then you are worthless.

And what are you saying are the "eternal, objective truths" at play here? Couldn't one argue that recognizing that this is about 'Freedom" (their words) is actually staying in line with those "eternal, objective truths"?

Any respectable person would stand by their convictions if the whole world insulted, ridiculed, attacked, or shunned them. But in politics there are no respectable people; just more panderers trying to score some votes. If the mob says "jump!" they say "how high?"

You are assuming that the entire GOP has always had anti-gay marriage convictions. I'd say thats not entirely accurate, and that it wasnt really until the late 70's, with the reagan/southern coalition that the GOP began to cater to religious fundamentalist social conservatives (who arent actually Conservative in any real sense of the word). In that sense, one could say this is them getting BACK to their ideals of liberty, and conservative FISCAL policy, right?

Ort is your argument that the GOP has always been social conservative christian fundamentalists?

Originally posted by stanguilles7

And what are you saying are the "eternal, objective truths" at play here? Couldn't one argue that recognizing that this is about 'Freedom" (their words) is actually staying in line with those "eternal, objective truths"?

If they want to place freedom above what is morally right, that is their choice. Assuming that be the case, then this position of theirs is entirely legitimate. But at the same time they must renounce their claims to being the party which defends tradition in America and the idea that America is a "Christian nation". Either freedom is above morality or morality is above freedom. They should not be mutually exclusive, but when freedom crushes morality they are.

You are assuming that the entire GOP has always had anti-gay marriage convictions.

I never said that. They claim to be such a religious party, the last defenders of traditional Christianity in America. That is their claim now, I am not speaking of their beliefs 10, 50, or 100 years ago.

I'd say thats not entirely accurate, and that it wasnt really until the late 70's, with the reagan/southern coalition that the GOP began to cater to religious fundamentalist social conservatives (who arent actually Conservative in any real sense of the word). In that sense, one could say this is them getting BACK to their ideals of liberty, and conservative FISCAL policy, right?

You do not know much about philosophical Conservatism do you? I have had to argue about this so many times on ATS it is giving me a headache. Conservatism has nothing to do with "free-markets, individualism, constitutionalism, equality, democracy, or progress". What is being pushed, not only in the US but all across the Western world, is Classical Liberalism. They throw in social conservatism but it really has no basis in their philosophy. Take it from me, I have dedicated countless hours to this subject - beyond what any normal person would.

Ort is your argument that the GOP has always been social conservative christian fundamentalists?

That has never been my argument.

Originally posted by Misoir

Originally posted by stanguilles7

And what are you saying are the "eternal, objective truths" at play here? Couldn't one argue that recognizing that this is about 'Freedom" (their words) is actually staying in line with those "eternal, objective truths"?

If they want to place freedom above what is morally right, that is their choice.

Morally right? So you are saying it's your personal opinion that gay marriage is not 'morally right'? Am I getting that correct?

Assuming that be the case, then this position of theirs is entirely legitimate. But at the same time they must renounce their claims to being the party which defends tradition in America and the idea that America is a "Christian nation".

Agreed. Which is the point, i think. Thats a fading demographic, and the GOP know it. They catered to that specific special interest for many years, but those voters are dying off, and young conservatives dont have the same values as their grandparents. hey know that to be a viable party in the coming decades, they will have to eschew those social conservative ties.

As for your claims that the GOP has traditionally been socially conservative, I'd be interested to know what you base that on. As I pointed out, it was never a huge part of their platform until the late 70's.

Originally posted by stanguilles7
Morally right? So you are saying it's your personal opinion that gay marriage is not 'morally right'? Am I getting that correct?

I did not state it was my opinion. I proclaimed it as objective fact; not opinion. If it were my opinion then it would be morally relativist. In my prior posts it had been clearly stated, what was being asserted was objective morality. That means there are certain universal truths which transcend the individual.

"The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat." - G. K. Chesterton, 'Orthodoxy'

As for your claims that the GOP has traditionally been socially conservative, I'd be interested to know what you base that on. As I pointed out, it was never a huge part of their platform until the late 70's.

Once again, for the third time now, I was not saying anything about the party's previous moral/ethical beliefs but only in regards to what they claim to profess now (and only now).

Originally posted by Misoir

Originally posted by stanguilles7
Morally right? So you are saying it's your personal opinion that gay marriage is not 'morally right'? Am I getting that correct?

I did not state it was my opinion. I proclaimed it as objective fact; not opinion. If it were my opinion then it would be morally relativist. In my prior posts it had been clearly stated, what was being asserted was objective morality. That means there are certain universal truths which transcend the individual.

I see. So, to clarify, you are saying that it is 'objective fact' that gay marriage is morally wrong? That being against 'marriage equality' is a 'universal truth'?

Do you consider yourself a GOP voter who would reject the GOP if they embraced 'marriage equality'?

In 10 years or so, gay marriage will be viewed by social conservatives the same way they view civil rights for minorities today.

They will be against it, but only privately. Outwardly they'll pretend to be ok with it because openly expressing such a backwards view would result in widespread admonishment.

Any political stance that hinges on removing the equal rights of others is destined for decline. The times are changing constantly, and the vast majority of the younger generation fully supports equal rights for homosexuals.

reply to post by stanguilles7


Is that what I said?

Am I a GOP voter? No, I am not. I am not a voter.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

Is that what I said?

Thats what I am hoping you will clarify, which is why i asked quite directly, yes.

Are you saying you think 'marriage equality' is 'morally wrong' and that said morality is a 'universal truth'?

Seems an easy question to answer.

reply to post by stanguilles7


Sodomite marriage is objectively wrong in any instance. Sodomy (verb) is unnatural and immoral. I have absolutely no problem with homosexuals who do not define themselves by their sexuality but rather by their character. Marriage has been for centuries defined in Western civilization as strictly between a man and a woman. This intent is to unite the two poles of human existence (male and female) in a transcendent union with the creator.

Being a advocate of private property rights, I believe two homosexuals should be afforded most of the rights heterosexuals have in sharing their lives, possessions, and love. But to redefine marriage would be the logical equivalent of redefining the word dog to include squirrels. Squirrels have four legs, a tail, two eyes, two ears, one mouth, teeth, a brain, and so on, just as a dog does. But if we define squirrels as dogs then we cannot say dogs of "man's best friend" for most squirrels are not domesticated, we cannot say dogs bark because squirrels do not, we cannot say dogs wag their tails when happy because (to my knowledge) squirrels do not. Thus to redefine dog to include squirrels would be the annihilation of our traditional understanding of what a dog is. The same applies to marriage.

This is the third time having to clarify what had already been clarified on this subject. I also had to clarify my position on the Republican Party' past stance on morality three times. Is this becoming a recurring event?

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

Sodomite marriage is objectively wrong in any instance. Sodomy (verb) is unnatural and immoral. I have absolutely no problem with homosexuals who do not define themselves by their sexuality but rather by their character. Marriage has been for centuries defined in Western civilization as strictly between a man and a woman. This intent is to unite the two poles of human existence (male and female) in a transcendent union with the creator.

Fascinating.

So, since ti would appear the GOP are slowly accepting 'marriage equality', as it moves into the mainstream, do you think voters like yourself (I understand that you say you dont vote, but you took the time to comment on the thread, about a specific political party, so hopefully you can see the relevance of the question) will switch to more socially conservative party?

Or will social conservatives who are opposed to 'equality' still vote GOP, just more begrudgingly?

Originally posted by drwizardphd
In 10 years or so, gay marriage will be viewed by social conservatives the same way they view civil rights for minorities today.

They will be against it, but only privately. Outwardly they'll pretend to be ok with it because openly expressing such a backwards view would result in widespread admonishment.

Any political stance that hinges on removing the equal rights of others is destined for decline. The times are changing constantly, and the vast majority of the younger generation fully supports equal rights for homosexuals.

I totally agree with this. The momentum is definitely moving towards acceptance of gays in our society - with all rights and benefits, including the benefit of marriage. When the GOP sees that this momentum is unstoppable, they will jump on the bandwagon - at least publicly. There are more and more Christians who understand that gay marriage is not an evil thing, and takes nothing away from heterosexual marriage. It is those growing number of Christians that the GOP will eventually identify with.

reply to post by stanguilles7


The GOP, and its 'conservative' values, are a dying breed.

Look back 10, 20, 30, 50, 100, 200 years.

Have we become more conservative? From the Puritans to now, the trend is toward Progressiivism/Liberalism.

Barring a catrosophic war or dictatorial takeover, I believe the trend will continue, and conservativism will be seen as a bygone era of thinking.

As the country moves, it Progresses, not Regress. They should be known as the Regressive party.

Originally posted by ErEhWoN
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

The GOP, and its 'conservative' values, are a dying breed.

Look back 10, 20, 30, 50, 100, 200 years.

Have we become more conservative? From the Puritans to now, the trend is toward Progressiivism/Liberalism.

Barring a catrosophic war or dictatorial takeover, I believe the trend will continue, and conservativism will be seen as a bygone era of thinking.

Perhaps. There is a big difference between social conservatism and fiscal conservatism. I agree that in many ways, the social conservatism as characterized by the Southern Alliance with christian conservatives is becoming an out-dated minorty. But at the same time, conservatism in different forms will always have an appeal. TheGOP has to walk a tightrope of not entirely alienating all their social con voters, while still opening themselves up to newer conservative voters who dont hold such outdated moral ideals.

This is really no different than what the Dems have to deal with as they slowly assimilate the 'equality; plank in their platform, as well. They have to be carfull to not alienate Latino and Black voters who have traditionally been opposed to 'gay marriage'.