Burnt Orange Report

Being a Gay Republican is like being a member of Jews for Hitler.
I simply can't understand how anybody in the GLBT community could support a party dedicated to persecuting them.

Sanctity = holiness

It is not the president's job to be the guardian of religious ideas. This is a true example of the confusion between church and state.

Outside of Article XVIII, no amendment is focused on prohibiting individual freedoms. (Amendment XXII could arguably fall into the category of prohibition.) It is a document that is focused on limiting and defining the role of the government, thereby defining individual freedoms.

Bush is obviously a product of Texas, where the constitutional amendments are used to order new toilet paper for the statehouse bathrooms.

I fundamentally oppose any amendment that is focused on limiting individual freedoms. It flies in the face of the spirit of the Bill of Rights and is out of place, misguided, and a step backwards. This country was born from the experience of a government unfairly limiting the rights and freedoms of citizens.

The Constitution is not the Ten Commandments (pick your version--I'm partial to the goat milk commandment, myself), but it appears that that Christian prohibitive mentality (which was also behind XVIII) is again at work.

This is one of the reasons that I believe in the separation of church and state, because you see a clear distinction in the mindsets in each. In religion, it's common to see limits on the individual. It's also obvious that tenets like the Ten Commandments aim at placing people subordinate to a higher power (God). I don't say that it's wrong, but it is the truth. The Constitution is just the opposite: A higher power (government and the federal government in particular) is subordinate to the people.

In the former model, it makes sense to focus on prohibiting individual actions. In the latter, it makes more sense to focus on prohibiting government actions. Bush is confusing these two very different mindsets.

And he is wrong.

Tim Z, I think you are looking at the party as a group of like-minded individuals, which the republicans are definitely not. They are the most disciplined party in world history, but they aren't ideologically homogenous. The party is mainly a coalition between libertarians and Jesus-freaks. The gay republicans always belong to the libertarian crowd.

Though I think this swing to the right may actually alienate many libertarian voters in November.

Byron's right; this is just a wedge issue. Bush knows an anti-gay marriage amendment won't pass. Rove just wants Congress to vote on it so the GOP can bash the Democrats who vote against it in November. Oh well, at least the Democrats can claim the mantle of states' rights on this issue.

Gay marriage wouldn't harm anyone, but this is one of those issues that people judge with their adrenal glands instead of their heads.

I hope it doesn't work, but we've all seen voters fall for these kinds of tactics before.

Dale Bumpers, former Democratic Senator from Arkansas, who served for many many years (was it 3 or 4 terms?), upon retiring, said that his proudest accomplishment in the Senate was that during his tenure, no Constitutional Amendment passed. It is an enduring document to serve as a general guideline, not a compendenium of minutae, which should be amended only rarely, for extraodrinary cause, and only when legislation cannot achieve the goal.

(As an aside and as an example of why even "good amendments" do not need ratification, one of the arguments against the ERA was that it was unneccesary - woman can have equal rights through legislation and the 14th Amendment already served to guarantee basis equality anyway. Even though the ERA failed, women still enjoy legal protections. Now, whether those protections are enforced is of course a separate matter and they need better enforcement, but the legal protections [e.g. cause of action for discrimination, pay inequity, etc.] are there.)

Hehe....it is true that here in Texas we have way to many constitutional amendments, and ordering tissue for the statehouse bathrooms probably isn't to far from the truth.

Just when you think Bush may get some balls and stand up to these zealots and keep this trash out of his speech, he reminds just why you have no respect for him as a public official, forget Clinton i miss his father.

Hopefully this issue does not play in November, well at least in the states we need to win, this issue well probably measure well down the list of concerns.

Jews for Hitler probably goes too far, but a Gay Republican does tend to confuse.

Myself and many, many people here in Massachusetts are supporting such an Amendment. We are outraged at what the SJC did. Gay marriage is against the laws of nature (even the lowest of animal world don't do what gay men do), and it is offensive to Christians and, indeed, all the religions of the world. What God calls an abomination can not, at the same time, be a sacrament - this is an insult, a mockery!

Hey Stu-
Let's speak hypothetically. Say you and your wife travel to Indonesia, and, while wandering the country to tour various cultural sites, the issue of your wife not being completely covered arises with some of the locals. Would you immediately concede that this was a sin and prohibit her from exposing any flesh other than that around her eyes? The point: not everyone is a Christian. The entire state of Massachusetts does not hold to your particular tenets of morality. Just as no Jewish person is asking you to wear a yarmulke and no Muslim individual is berating you for not bowing toward Mecca, you have no inherent right to decide morality for a group of others based solely upon your particular religious views. The fact is, The United States is unique among world cultures because all viewpoints and religions are welcomed. I will grant that Christianity forms the majority of religious activity in the United States; however, it is by no means the only religion present. Furthermore, in no way does gay marriage impact your particular marriage or heterosexual marriage as a whole. The two (homosexual and heterosexual marriage) can peacefully coexist if religious hardliners and gay-rights hardliners can manage to cease expecting one other to live by the beliefs of a group fundamentally different from themselves.

I will get straight to the point. This entire controversy of homosexuality exists solely because of a basic lack of understanding of Man and his basic purposes and goals. The argument that homosexuality is not a choice and that homosexuals are equal to, say, blacks (slavery) or women (suffrage) is a lie. Just because you don't remember choosing proves nothing. Do you remember every choice you ever made; particularly the ones for which you didn't want to take responsibility? I'm not trying to make you wrong. What is right about homosexuality?

Knowing that there is a road out of this mess is a good thing; you don't have to be gay. My saddest day was when I realized that I had no choice- I was gay, period. Once I discovered how to get back to my basic goals, it was the happiest day of my life. You don't have to be gay. You DO have to use a workable technology. All these confusions about Mankind have been propagated by psychiatry (a complete and provable fraud: http://www.cchr.org ) so its no surprise that people are in such a mess.

Basically, the confusion is that you have been taught that you are an animal who has never been anyone before this life. If you had been going along just fine in female bodies for the last million years and suddenly you find yourself stuck in a male body, and DIDN'T REMEMBER IT, all those appropriate feelings you had as a woman would confuse you; until you had an explanation for it: GAY. I suppose if you believe that you are that slab of meat sitting in that chair then you might think, "How could I have existed before my body was made?" I am not going to argue the existence of the spirit, you can make up your own mind about that. I am simply letting you know that YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE GAY. There is something you can do about it:
http://www.smi.org/route/page41.htm
http://www.smi.org/route/page10.htm
and look up the confusion formula of the ethics conditions: http://www.smi.org/route/page49.htm

Finally, the purpose of Marriage is Creation. The only thing homosexuals create are make-overs and really good broadway shows. : ) No, really, producing healthy, happy children to continue the human race is the primary creation of marriage. Incredible sex is just a bonus. Just because many fail at marriage just indicates a lack of workable technology in that area - (e.g. any church or counselor that uses psychiatry).

This message is part of my own application of the condition formulas. I am no longer gay. I choose to join the (sexual) group that promotes the survival of the Human Race the most: heterosexuals who want to create a stable family.

Read the language of that proposed amendment carefully! You'll notice that it divides the world between 'married couples' which "consist only of the union of a man and a woman" and 'everyone else' - and it says that the "incidents of marriage" will be denied to EVERYONE who is not married.

It does NOT say that the "incidents of marriage" will be denied only to gay couples; it says they will be denied to ALL unmarried people, including heterosexual couples. The current language of this amendment could easily be used to outlaw ALL sex outside of marriage.