Talk Elections

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/top-gop-pollster-to-gop-reverse-on-gay-issues.html (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/top-gop-pollster-to-gop-reverse-on-gay-issues.html)

The part that stands out to me:

"Polling conducted among Republicans show that majorities of Republicans and Republican leaning voters support extending basic legal protections to gays and lesbians. These include majority Republican support for:

a. Protecting gays and lesbians against being fired for reasons of sexual orientation
b. Protections against bullying and harassment
c. Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
d. Right to visit partners in hospitals
e. Protecting partners against loss of home in case of severe medical emergencies or death
f. Legal protection in some form for gay couples whether it be same sex marriage or domestic partnership (only 29% of Republicans oppose legal recognition in any form)."

So should the Republican Party in its 2012 platform, at least support the above measures?

1. They'd have a chance to gain more moderate voters.
2. People who are opposed to these measures are very likely to vote GOP anyway. No way they're going to make a third party or sit home and not vote just because of this.
3. The majority of Republicans support these measures, so it would be an accurate reflection of the average Republican position.

And this is the pollster's new talking point, explaining gay marriage as it fits within conservative ideology:
“As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.

Looks like the GOP might have to at some point, but this is going to be a major embarrassment for the "traditional values" party.

The Republican leaders and party officials, as well as the dedicated activists and primary voters that are collectively known as "the base", are firmly of the extreme right-wing, ideological, partisan "stick to your guns"  camp. They won't be endorsing LGBT rights any time soon.

The rational and decent conflict with the harsh judgmentalism of the Hard Right.

It may have seemed politically daring to stand with civil rights for Southern blacks in the early 1960s. The 1964 Presidential election showed that such was right.

"But they are going to take our guns and our bibles away!"

I say kick the 80's evangelicals and religious right out the party and re merge with libertarian movement. And at the same time kick out the neo-cons so the republican message of being fiscally responsible actually makes sense since they won't advocate spending billions of dollars over seas.

\

Yes, I am cautiously optimistic that they will, leaving just the bare moniker issue  as the last barrier left to true equality.

I get the feeling that within the next 15-20 years, the GOP will flip on gay marriage, foreign policy, maybe abortion and some other social/defense issues. I think Democrats will ultimately become the party of war once again, and possibly socially authoritarian.

I'm actually ok with a and b but no c and absolutely no marriage period. We ain't flipping on the social issues but we will going back to the Taftite fiscal and foreign policy inside 5 years.

Just drop the whole thing, it's a lost battle. As the long as neither party becomes pedo friendly I don't really care. That's why I don't like the LGBT thing, I don't know where it's leading.

Oh? Where is it 'leading'?

Well, it's leading towards

1. Legalized polygamy, which could have profound impacts on a number of things

2. Government extraction from marriage, which is somewhat more benign

But not "pedo", no.

What is the bare moniker issue?

Forgot the 'know', I'm certainly not implying it's leading that way currently.

I'm sure your underage cousin will be disappointed when she learns that.

I can see #2 sooner than #1, to be perfectly honest, but I might have too much naive faith in a number of things.

Nathan, that's quite likely... I didn't mean to say that one must come first. Ironically, it might make religious conservatives happy because then they take back some measure of control over 'marriage'.

It is currently still (at least technically) against the law in most states to bare your moniker.

there is no "libertarian movement" that matters (seriously even going with the watered down pseudo-libertarian definition on gallup it's not more than in the teens % wise). how many times do we have to say this? actually cutting programs is very obviously not popular. even when countries are literally bankrupt and you would think people would have toned things down a bit, 'austerity' tends to have to be imposed at gunpoint. and do you really think all the contractors and 'the base' living off military pork are going to be thrilled to see 'crucial defense spending' cut? theres a reason why everyone in power will propose at least token cuts but wont even touch that. and if you don't like that good luck starting your own little micronation and not getting bombed for housing the black market and dreaded tax evaders too.

the only way that will remotely have a chance of happening is if the us is literally not able to pay for its military anymore... for obvious reasons.


this is "interesting" considering what it implies you think of them already.

The idea of a libertarian-esque/socially moderate GOP is far-fetched and ridiculous. They'll certainly moderate over the next decade but they'll maintain their position as a socially conservative, religious party and will continue to focus on their current coalition. I imagine them taking the path towards something similar to Stephen Harper's Tories: tailored messages to immigrants, a drop on the discussion of cultural conservatism with minor concessions and an economic focus. They'll never be able to regain traction with inner-suburban/urban upper-middle class whites but keeping competitiveness in swingier territory should be easy. Why would they give up "family values" when the most important emerging group of voters is attached to them?

So:
-lukewarm acceptance of civil unions
-continued lipservice against gay marriage
-welfare in the form of "child tax credits" becoming a major issue
-etc.

You can already tell they're headed in this direction and are planning for it. It's evident in the cognitive dissonance of their rhetoric on gay marriage.

I say its not a big deal now but in 15 years it will be for the GOP to moderate some way on that issue.

Calling the gay statutory equivalent of marriage a different name, to wit "civil unions."

Bible believing Christians will never support gay marriage.  Period.

Tell that to the people of my church

jmfcst selectively defines 'Bible believing', you see.

bible believing christian is a pretty lame attempt at framing fundamentalism as true christianity. still better than 'a personal relationship with jesus' though.

"Bible believing" is a term of art used by Evangelicals in general as an exclusionary term of self congratulation. Catholics and Mainline Protestants need not apply. Yes, it is grating on the ears, and does not comport with my sense of aesthetics, but then all that LDS hatred out there does not either.

i thought you were jewish?

Episcopalian I think. That sect has gay priests, and I think one lesbian Bishop up in New Hampshire or somewhere. I don't think they will be merging with the Catholics anytime soon.  The Henry VIII schism endures. :)

If that happens then the there will be a Christian Political Third Party.