• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriage

Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Fiddytree said:
Correct, but a compromise could be where Democratic Candidate supports federal endorsement of gay marriage, Republican candidate could support a state path, while making clear he personally supports the concept of gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Oh, fiddlesticks.....................
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Bonzai said:
Oh, fiddlesticks.....................
Click to expand...

Filburt.jpg
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Fiddytree said:
Ever is such a jaded term with political platforms! It may or may not be in this upcoming Presidential election cycle, but it will likely come soon (by the time the next President's first term is over).
Click to expand...

If it happens, I suspect the process will basically follow the same path that the Equal Rights Amendment took in the Republican platform. If I recall correctly, it was added to the GOP platform in either 1940 or 1944, and then... just sort of sat there for four decades before being quietly removed in 1984. The same thing will probably happen with the Federal Marriage Amendment that's been in the Republican platform since the 1990s.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Einzige said:
If it happens, I suspect the process will basically follow the same path that the Equal Rights Amendment took in the Republican platform. If I recall correctly, it was added to the GOP platform in either 1940 or 1944, and then... just sort of sat there for four decades before being quietly removed in 1984. The same thing will probably happen with the Federal Marriage Amendment that's been in the Republican platform since the 1990s.
Click to expand...

Equal Rights Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Republican Party included support of the ERA in its platform beginning in 1940, renewing the plank every four years until 1980.[8]
Click to expand...

Yes, I think the Federal Marriage Amendment in the Republican platform will, in the best-case scenario, follow this course, as unfortunate as it is.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

ReformCollege said:
I'd appreciate if you didn't lecture me for comments you didn't understand the context of. I was referring to overt public displays of affection, where I find it socially unacceptable regardless of sexual orientation. That is what I was referring to about the separate set of rules.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I apologize for misconstruing your post. Many people have referred to the securing of SSM rights as granting special rights for gays. I assumed that's what you were doing. Consider my comment a rebuttal to that, even though that's not what you were saying.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Einzige said:
Formerly in American history Presidential nominees operated basically independently of their Party platform (the most famous example is probably that of the Democratic peace platform of 1864, which was unceremoniously ignored by the Democratic candidate, General George McClellan). That wouldn't fly today, because the political process has been altered to make a point of neutering nominees before they even get to the ballot.
Click to expand...

I don't think the political process has changed. The 1864 Democratic convention was much different, because of the events of the time. The nomination was between McClellan (a war Democrat) and Thomas Seymour (a Copperhead). There was no way a Copperhead was going to get the nomination.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Fiddytree said:
Filburt.jpg
Click to expand...

Is that the ND state mascot ?....................These hicks are unintelligible...................
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

apdst said:
I don't think the political process has changed. The 1864 Democratic convention was much different, because of the events of the time. The nomination was between McClellan (a war Democrat) and Thomas Seymour (a Copperhead). There was no way a Copperhead was going to get the nomination.
Click to expand...

Sure it has. The McGovern-Fraser Commission alone guaranteed that any candidate would now have to make it through the primaries to become the nominee, which automatically means that the nominee is inextricably bound to the Party platform. He has much less leeway today to be his own man than previously, when Party bosses could anoint a nominee without needing the explicit approval of the primary voters.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Bonzai said:
Is that the ND state mascot ?....................These hicks are unintelligible...................
Click to expand...

I suppose the concept of a "reference" is foreign to you?
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Einzige said:
Equal Rights Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Yes, I think the Federal Marriage Amendment in the Republican platform will, in the best-case scenario, follow this course, as unfortunate as it is.
Click to expand...

Potentially, but I don't quite think this will be the same. I see the traction for a state plank more successful than a federal--->state ratification ERA.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Fiddytree said:
I suppose the concept of a "reference" is foreign to you?
Click to expand...

Would I be wrong in thinking you're trying to get "deep" here ?...........................
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Bonzai said:
Would I be wrong in thinking you're trying to get "deep" here ?...........................
Click to expand...

Pervert.

Ah, no, I'm not. It was meant to be a joke, but you had to be a Stiffly Stifferson about it.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

j-mac said:
Who says that Rove speaks for anyone other than the establishment, progressive wing of the GOP?
Click to expand...



The establishment is good for you. It just takes calculated compromise to get votes. No sense in isolating the party from fairly clear changes in the political landscape.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

j-mac said:
Who says that Rove speaks for anyone other than the establishment, progressive wing of the GOP?
Click to expand...

The Republican Establishment is "progressive"? o_O

No. The Republican Establishment is, at best, Nixonian.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Fiddytree said:
Pervert.

Ah, no, I'm not. It was meant to be a joke, but you had to be a Stiffly Stifferson about it.
Click to expand...

Ingrate............
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

ReformCollege said:
There is no such thing as a "normal" social structure....
Click to expand...
Then why did you bring it up?


Note, I did not say that it is "natural." I said it is not biologically necessary, while heterosexuality is. Major difference.
Click to expand...
It's a meaningless difference, in the context of this discussion.

Allowing same-sex marriage will have no impact on marriages between a man and a woman. It does not have any effect on procreation. It does not encourage more people to become homosexual.

In addition, we do not require citizens to reproduce. Nor do we restrict marriage to couples that want to reproduce. If a 50 year old man and a 50 year old woman choose to marry, we do not stop them on the basis that a childless marriage somehow threatens the institution.

In other words, there is pretty much no reason to block same-sex marriage.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Mr.Nick said:
Arbitrators step in - not the government. A contract is de facto law - hence a contract. A contract is nothing more than an agreement between two (or more) individuals. That's the best I can do trying to be brief and not complicate the idea of a contract.
Click to expand...

Let me be brief, laws are made by governments, arbitrators are not the last best hope, the laws created that govern contracts come from governments and get modified by governments.

Contract law is not divine law, nor did it come to us on stone tablets. judge and juries do decide contract cases, the government does regulate what can and can't be in a contract.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Fiddytree said:


The establishment is good for you. It just takes calculated compromise to get votes. No sense in isolating the party from fairly clear changes in the political landscape.
Click to expand...


No need in trusting charlatan's either...
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Einzige said:
The Republican Establishment is "progressive"? o_O

No. The Republican Establishment is, at best, Nixonian.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and?..... Nixon grew government, established the EPA, and a host of so called social policy that contributed to the further degradation of America by opening the door for progressives to creep in.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

j-mac said:
Yeah, and?..... Nixon grew government, established the EPA, and a host of so called social policy that contributed to the further degradation of America by opening the door for progressives to creep in.
Click to expand...

George Washington and John Adams also "grew the government" and neither one of them were remotely progressive, either for their age or any other.

"Big government" =/= progressive, any more than "small government" = conservative.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Einzige said:
George Washington and John Adams also "grew the government" and neither one of them were remotely progressive, either for their age or any other.

"Big government" =/= progressive, any more than "small government" = conservative.
Click to expand...

No surprise, we disagree.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

But, but, but. Peoples is gonna be wantin' to be queerses iffin' youse be sayin' "good" thangs about queerses................You peoples are so slow !......................
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Mr.Nick said:
I don't really like evangelists, however it is quite clear you have absolutely ZERO concept of Christianity given your comment.

We're all sinners - That is why Jesus was crucified (or allowed himself to be)..

There is no such thing as a mortal perfect being....

I find it amusing how the progressive atheists sit there an attempt to imply evangelicals should be perfect.... At least evangelicals at least try to be the best they can be and do everything in their power to avoid what casual people or secular individuals would call "pleasures."

Sorry, I had to get that out of my system...
Click to expand...

Jesus was crucified because were all sinners? I thought he was crucified because he challenged Roman governmental authority.

Never understood why we are all considered sinners.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

j-mac said:
Yeah, and?..... Nixon grew government, established the EPA, and a host of so called social policy that contributed to the further degradation of America by opening the door for progressives to creep in.
Click to expand...

Progressives were in American government long before Richard Nixon was alive. Nixon was simply being prudent much of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom