Gay Marriage Could Bring Shifts in Republican Race - Polidicks

[release]Republican presidential candidates are joining New Hampshire's intensifying gay marriage debate — whether they like it or not. [B]State lawmakers plan to take up a measure to repeal the law allowing same-sex couples to wed and a vote is expected at some point in January — the same month as New Hampshire holds the nation's first Republican presidential primary contest.[/B] Already, candidates have been put on the spot over the divisive social issue when most, if not all, would rather be talking about the economy, voters' No. 1 concern. The impending focus on gay marriage carries risk for several of White House contenders — including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former businessman Herman Cain — whose inconsistencies on the topic are well documented. Recent polls have shown former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at or near the top of the field, along with Romney. With a little less than six weeks to go until the lead-off Iowa caucuses, people are listening to the former nemesis of Bill Clinton and would-be challenger to President Barack Obama. But this issue may cause Gingrich problems. Earlier in the fall, he told an Iowa audience that gay marriage is a "temporary aberration" likely to go away because it defies convention. Gingrich, who has been married three times, has a half-sister in a same-sex marriage. "The truth is that you're living in a world that no longer exists," Candace Gingrich-Jones wrote the former speaker in a letter posted on the Huffington Post in 2008: "In other words, stop being a hater, big bro." [B]The Republican candidates' increasingly vocal support for "traditional marriage" also threatens to alienate a growing number of younger Republicans and independents here who support legal recognition of same-sex couples. That note of divisiveness could bode poorly for the eventual Republican challenger to Obama in the general election. [/B]Even so, the Republican candidates aren't shying away from the topic as they run for the nomination of a party dominated by conservatives and pushed further to the right by the tea party over the last few years. "As conservatives, we believe in the sanctity of life, we believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage, and I applaud those legislators in New Hampshire who are working to defend marriage between one man and one woman realizing that children need to be raised in a loving home by a mother and a father," Perry told a New Hampshire audience recently, becoming the latest contender to address gay marriage directly. Although the issue hasn't yet become a regular talking point on the campaign trail, most Republican candidates declare support for the effort to repeal the law. And groups like the National Organization for Marriage hope to force the presidential contenders to publicly embrace the repeal. Romney was the Massachusetts governor when his state legalized gay marriage. The Romney administration, as directed by the courts, granted nearly 200 same-sex marriage requests for gay and lesbian couples in 2005. Campaign spokesman Ryan Williams said the former governor had little choice but to follow the state Supreme Court ruling at the time. He noted his candidate's consistent opposition to both civil unions and gay marriages, adding that Romney openly supports the New Hampshire repeal effort. But Romney has reversed himself on whether gay marriage should be addressed at the state or federal level. This past June, he said during a debate that he favors a federal constitutional amendment banning the practice. That's been his position at least since the beginning of his 2008 presidential bid, when he was the only major Republican candidate to support such an amendment. But as a Massachusetts Senate candidate back in 1994, Romney told a Boston-area gay newspaper that same-sex marriage is "a state issue as you know — the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction." Aides say it's unfair to scrutinize Romney's position in 1994 — when there was virtually no discussion of a federal amendment. And they suggest Romney's rivals have far more blatant inconsistencies in recent months. Both Perry and Cain have drawn conservative criticism for recent comments related to gay marriage. Asked in mid-October whether he supports a federal marriage amendment, Cain told the Christian Broadcasting Network that federal legislation is necessary to protect traditional marriage. That seemed to be a direct contradiction from his statement of just six days earlier, when he told "Meet the Press" host David Gregory that states should be allowed to make up their own minds. "I wouldn't seek a constitutional ban for same sex marriage, but I am pro traditional marriage," Cain told Gregory. In Perry's case, the Texas governor says he supports the New Hampshire repeal. But in July he said that New York's move to legalize gay marriage was "fine by me." A week later, facing social conservative criticism, he walked back the comments. "It's fine with me that the state is using their sovereign right to decide an issue. Obviously gay marriage is not fine with me," he said then.[/release] [I]Source (MSNBC citing AP): [URL]http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/24/8996451-gay-marriage-could-bring-shifts-in-republican-race[/URL][/I]

GOP: Greedy Old Pricks. It's easy to distance yourself from the things minorities do for rights when you've spent all your life as a crock pot of the majority: White, male, upper middle class Christian heterosexual.

[QUOTE=Fort83;33440923]The republicans fighting against gay marriage need to come back to reality instead of living in the dark ages. This is the age of tolerance, and marriage is the bond between two people that love eachother.[/QUOTE] Communist

how can anyone say that these guys aren't a bunch of hateful bigoted pricks?

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;33441117]how can anyone say that these guys aren't a bunch of hateful bigoted pricks?[/QUOTE] People who would gladly kill for jesus.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;33441117]how can anyone say that these guys aren't a bunch of hateful bigoted pricks?[/QUOTE] but remebrr the democrats have done bad things too !!!

[QUOTE=Rubs10;33441364]but remebrr the democrats have done bad things too !!![/QUOTE] d-d-d-democrats are cowardly! SURE they aren't actually trying to take rights away from their nations citizens but... but they are cowards and they do bad stuff!

[QUOTE=Nikota;33441035]Communist[/QUOTE] it's called socialist now

I think the 'old' part in GOP means 'Dark Ages old'. I do wish to know why people are intolerant of stuff like gay marriage. If I could understand them, everything would be easy.

I'd much rather see the Republican party shift towards Libertarianism. At the present moment, I support most of their economic policy, but I feel alienated because I don't align at all with pretty much all of their social platforms.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;33441995]I'd much rather see the Republican party shift towards Libertarianism. At the present moment, I support most of their economic policy, but I feel alienated because I don't align at all with pretty much all of their social platforms.[/QUOTE] Ah yes, invisible hand of the free market and all that. Competition between the privatized schools and the privatized hospitals will create the best economic situation right now, won't it?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33442067]Ah yes, invisible hand of the free market and all that. Competition between the privatized schools and the privatized hospitals will create the best economic situation right now, won't it?[/QUOTE] Having a free market economy is, in my opinion, better than having a country structured around state-run monopolies.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;33442125]It's certainly preferable, in my opinion, to having a country structured around state-run monopolies.[/QUOTE] And in your mind there's no middle ground between a country constituted entirely of state-run monopolies and a country constituted entirely of privatized industries? The police, firefighters, postal service, and educational system are subsidized to varying degrees to ensure that they will always be there and are publicly accountable. While this doesn't [I]always[/I] work out properly, a privatized system guarantees no public accountability other than boycotts, and those tend to not work when the services and goods are essential, as is the case with healthcare and schooling.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;33441995]I'd much rather see the Republican party shift towards Libertarianism. At the present moment, I support most of their economic policy, but I feel alienated because I don't align at all with pretty much all of their social platforms.[/QUOTE] I admire Ron Paul because he knows his beliefs and sticks with them, rather than being the flavor of the month. His ideas are utter shit and only work on paper, and the guy is completely fucking nuts, but he sticks by his insane ideas.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33442188]And in your mind there's no middle ground between a country constituted entirely of state-run monopolies and a country constituted entirely of privatized industries? The police, firefighters, postal service, and educational system are subsidized to varying degrees to ensure that they will always be there and are publicly accountable. While this doesn't [I]always[/I] work out properly, a privatized system guarantees no public accountability other than boycotts, and those tend to not work when the services and goods are essential, as is the case with healthcare and schooling.[/QUOTE] I was simply providing the opposite extreme to the one you tried to antagonize me with. I'm by no means in favor of a pure free-market economy. Obviously the state should run the police forces, firefighters, education and other necessities. Both parties agree on that. However, nationalizing anything beyond the bare needs of the public is foolish in my opinion. Handing the means of production away from the people to a single dominating and incompetent government is by no means a liberation.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;33442271]I was simply providing the opposite extreme to the one you tried to antagonize me with. I'm by no means in favor of a pure free-market economy. Obviously the state should run the police forces, firefighters, education and other necessities. Both parties agree on that. However, nationalizing anything beyond the bare needs of the public is foolish in my opinion. Handing the means of production away from the people to a single dominating and incompetent government is by no means a liberation.[/QUOTE] Doesn't Ron Paul want to cut the Department of Education?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33442582]Doesn't Ron Paul want to cut the Department of Education?[/QUOTE] And the Environmental Protection Agency, and he wants us to pull out of the UN, and essentially isolate the US from the rest of the world, and repeal the civil rights act because he doesn't think it's up to the government.

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;33441605]it's called socialist now[/QUOTE] I would prefer to be called a Statist thanks!

Traditionally, marriage is always in a flux depending on which century and society you are in.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33440631] — whether they like it or not.[/QUOTE] I found the problem.

If marriage didn't exist, would anybody say "hey Baby, we got something hot going on, so hot that we should government involved".

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33442582]Doesn't Ron Paul want to cut the Department of Education?[/QUOTE] He wants to cut [I]everything[/I]; Libertarians abhor Federal government in its entirety.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33442188]And in your mind there's no middle ground between a country constituted entirely of state-run monopolies and a country constituted entirely of privatized industries? The police, firefighters, postal service, and educational system are subsidized to varying degrees to ensure that they will always be there and are publicly accountable. While this doesn't [I]always[/I] work out properly, a privatized system guarantees no public accountability other than boycotts, and those tend to not work when the services and goods are essential, as is the case with healthcare and schooling.[/QUOTE] State control of the market leaves incredible room for human error and corruption.

[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;33443440]State control of the market leaves incredible room for human error and corruption.[/QUOTE] and privatization doesn't?

[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;33443440]State control of the market leaves incredible room for human error and corruption.[/QUOTE] And you think there would be less in a privatized system? At least in a public one, it's designed to be held accountable by the public, a private corporation has no inherent responsibility to care about customer desires or complaints, especially not if they are the only available option in a given area.

Read the first line as repealing a law that allowed gay people to vote.

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;33441605]it's called socialist now[/QUOTE] I tought it was muslim terrorist these days?

[QUOTE=Omali;33440672]GOP: Greedy Old Pricks. It's easy to distance yourself from the things minorities do for rights when you've spent all your life as a crock pot of the majority: White, male, upper middle class Christian [B]heterosexual[/B].[/QUOTE] Ehhhhhhh.

[QUOTE=Fort83;33440923]marriage is the bond between two people that love eachother.[/QUOTE] What about polygamy

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;33445685]What about polygamy[/QUOTE] Have you ever heard of 3 people all marrying each other?