GOP platform committee rejects civil unions

[Dan82]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79936.html

The Republican platform committee resoundingly rejected an amendment Tuesday that would have endorsed civil unions for gay couples.

The GOP will maintain its official support for a constitutional amendment that would “protect traditional marriage” by defining it as between a man and a woman.

The Democratic National Committee platform has embraced gay marriage, spurred by President Barack Obama’s decision to endorse it earlier in the year.

But here at the Marriott hotel, where Mitt Romney will stay when he accepts his party’s nomination next week, a series of similar amendments were soundly rejected during subcommittee meetings on Monday. Supporters of marriage equality wanted an up-or-down vote before the full body of just over 100 members...







http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79936.html

[Vesper]

It also supported a ban on abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, even in light of the recent comments by Rep. Todd Akin.

What a bunch.

[paul]

yeah theres a reason they seperated church from state. the people voting against gay marriage aren't even affected. its fucking ridiculous.

[Emberstone]

What do you expect from the republicans, the political party that stands alone in actively including discrimination and hatred towards minorities in their mission statement.

[starfish]

Until they add a plank to bring back traditional slavery I am not voting for them.

[IllusiveRannoch]

Originally Posted by Emberstone

What do you expect from the republicans, the political party that stands alone in actively including discrimination and hatred towards minorities in their mission statement.

what do i expect you ask?..... let's say i notice many of them like

[IllusiveRannoch]

^ note: no diss for anyone, only satire intended

[Doctor Faustus]

*is so not surprised*

Closed minds! Closed minds!

[Fiddledeedee]

Civil union isn't even marriage -- what the hell are they complaining about?

[Pret Allez]

Mainstream Republican just want queers to suffer as much as possible.

[Rakkaus]

The haters are just getting desperate now trying to cling to what little power they have left...they see LGBTQ folk winning victories day after day, they know they are not going to win this war in the long-run.

The Republican Party is a rapidly shrinking gang of bigoted old white people. There is no future for that party. Either it will change or become extinct.

[Pret Allez]

I would love it if that were true, but sexual bigotry is extremely popular with Americans.

[Rakkaus]

Originally Posted by Pret Allez

I would love it if that were true, but sexual bigotry is extremely popular with Americans.

Well yeah, but the tide is changing. Every day old bigots die out, and they are replaced by a much more tolerant and accepting new generation. The GOP is headed for a demographic disaster. They can only get a few more squeezes out of their old 'divide and conquer' Southern strategy before they suddenly find themselves facing a totally transformed country.

[Praetor]

I never understood the logic - homophobic people have accused (and do still) LGBTs of being things like "unfaithful" or "perverts" and the like. Yet when asking for the right to be acknowledged in a legally-binding monogamous relationship, these same people get all angry with the notion.

I also don't understand how they can say that there is a "gay agenda" being forced on a nation and complain about their rights when they are attempting to push their own agenda and force their beliefs (which are no longer even the majority I think?) on the rest of the populace.

[LailaForbidden]

this proves its not about the values of marriage, but homophobia. why do they even pretend?

[GDUSA]

These type of issues shouldn't define a political party or a election. There are lots of LGBTQ ppl who do support GOP. There does need change but hopefully everybody is more excepting.

[lazyboy]

I'm sorry, I really don't understand what exactly the basis of the Republican objection is. Is it a religious one? Are they afraid that churches will be forced to recognize SSMs they object to? And what's the difference between a civil union and say, going into town and being married by a government official? Is there one?

I'm sorry, I've googled all this in an effort to understand the nuances of the Republican objections, but the explanations I'm getting are wordy technical things that babble on but don't state any real difference at all, aside from civil unions being thought of as lesser things. I find the whole argument unnecessarily complicated.

In my mind, all legalizing SSM means is that the gov't will recognize a marriage certificate with two men's names or two women's names on it. Who performed the marriage or filled out the certificate is of little consequence, provided it's done legitimately.

I apologize if this seems a bit off topic. I wasn't sure if this qualified as a separate topic or not, since it's my response to the article.

[Rakkaus]

Originally Posted by lazyboy

I'm sorry, I really don't understand what exactly the basis of the Republican objection is. Is it a religious one? Are they afraid that churches will be forced to recognize SSMs they object to? And what's the difference between a civil union and say, going into town and being married by a government official? Is there one?

I'm sorry, I've googled all this in an effort to understand the nuances of the Republican objections, but the explanations I'm getting are wordy technical things that babble on but don't state any real difference at all, aside from civil unions being thought of as lesser things. I find the whole argument unnecessarily complicated.

In my mind, all legalizing SSM means is that the gov't will recognize a marriage certificate with two men's names or two women's names on it. Who performed the marriage or filled out the certificate is of little consequence, provided it's done legitimately.

I apologize if this seems a bit off topic. I wasn't sure if this qualified as a separate topic or not, since it's my response to the article.

The issue is that Republicans hate LGBTQ people. There's no other basis for their 'objection'.

As the tide of public opinion has turned, a lot of the anti-equality forces have been trying to soften their image and push the idea that they just want to preserve the word "marriage" and have no animosity toward gays. But the fact that the Republican Party platform now explicitly rejects even civil unions exposes the fact that it really is just all about harming LGBTQ people.

And the only issue up for debate is civil marriage conducted by the secular government. No churches would be forced to perform any marriages they didn't want to, although in my opinion a church that discriminates should not be receiving tax breaks. But there's just no reason or compromise with these hatemongers. Religious fanatics enjoy such a privileged place in American society and government, it's just absurd.