PDA

View Full Version : Why No Gay Person Should Ever Vote Republican


uncle ebeneezer
05-17-2011, 03:36 PM
Just sickening (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wisconsin-governor-moves-to-block-hospital-visitation-rights-for-same-sex-couples/). Can't wait to hear Althouse defend this, yet insist she is not a conservative.

TwinSwords
05-17-2011, 04:29 PM
Just sickening (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wisconsin-governor-moves-to-block-hospital-visitation-rights-for-same-sex-couples/). Can't wait to hear Althouse defend this, yet insist she is not a conservative.

Absolutely right, Eb. One of the most revolting things about Althouse has been her tireless work on behalf of a party -- the GOP -- that demonizes her own gay son.

AS for your subject, I would only suggest a minor modification:

Why No <strike>Gay</strike> Person Should Ever Vote Republican

Voting Republican really does mean signing onto a program of moral depravity.

operative
05-17-2011, 04:36 PM
Just sickening (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wisconsin-governor-moves-to-block-hospital-visitation-rights-for-same-sex-couples/). Can't wait to hear Althouse defend this, yet insist she is not a conservative.

Hmmm...the action of one governor means that no gay person should ever vote for any Republican in any state. That totally makes sense.


An actual non-opinion piece on the matter:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/wis-gov-walker-tells-judge-he-wants-to-stop-defending-domestic-partner-registry-law-in-court/2011/05/16/AFbsBD5G_story.html

The bill concerns a registry. It is not about Scott Walker not wanting gay partners to visit each other in hospitals. And he may be right--the bill may violate the state's Amendment.

But this is why the best solution is simply to take government out of the business of sanctioning marriages altogether and to just recognize contracts instead.

Don Zeko
05-17-2011, 06:22 PM
Hmmm...the action of one governor means that no gay person should ever vote for any Republican in any state. That totally makes sense.


An actual non-opinion piece on the matter:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/wis-gov-walker-tells-judge-he-wants-to-stop-defending-domestic-partner-registry-law-in-court/2011/05/16/AFbsBD5G_story.html

The bill concerns a registry. It is not about Scott Walker not wanting gay partners to visit each other in hospitals. And he may be right--the bill may violate the state's Amendment.

But this is why the best solution is simply to take government out of the business of sanctioning marriages altogether and to just recognize contracts instead.

Come on Op, this is pretty pathetic excuse making. Walker had a choice here, and the choice he made will take basic civil rights away from gay people in his state. I don't care if he dresses his objections up in federalism or arcane constitutional theories. The fact is that he could have been a friend to gay rights but he chose not to.

operative
05-17-2011, 06:28 PM
Come on Op, this is pretty pathetic excuse making. Walker had a choice here, and the choice he made will take basic civil rights away from gay people in his state. I don't care if he dresses his objections up in federalism or arcane constitutional theories. The fact is that he could have been a friend to gay rights but he chose not to.

I don't think that state or federal executives should be directing their attorney generals to stop defending a law when they decide that they feel it is unconstitutional, so I don't think that Walker should've made that decision (same as I said when Obama did it). But I think that legal and procedural principles are far more important than personal feelings in this case (and all cases, for that matter). I share your objection to the state deciding who gets visitation rights and who doesn't, but I think this is better done by changing our outlook on the scope of state responsibilities in general.

bjkeefe
05-17-2011, 06:49 PM
Just sickening (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wisconsin-governor-moves-to-block-hospital-visitation-rights-for-same-sex-couples/). [...]

This is chapter 1,408,739,073,951 in the ongoing saga of The Teabaggers Only Care About Fiscal Issues!!!1!

Starwatcher162536
05-18-2011, 12:26 PM
Social conservatives are my least favorite politically active group of note. If they, and the rights' broad acceptance of various Randian fantasies since Reagan didn't exist, I might be tempted to call myself a conservative. Perhaps I should just call myself a nuts and bolts libertarian with the morality of a liberal.

On subject, if I were gay and Republican, I would say "You don't define yourself by who you choose to fuck. Neither do I".

operative
05-18-2011, 01:26 PM
Perhaps we should narrow the field considerably. I would say that no gay person should ever vote for Michelle Bachmann:
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/05/michele-bachmann-bradlee-dean

Though it's not like any gay people were going to anyway.

uncle ebeneezer
05-18-2011, 01:51 PM
Starr, show them some pity. Many of them aren't getting nearly enough in that aspect of their lives, or even worse, feel guilty about it when they do. IE- forgive them, for they know not what they do (or don't) :)