Thread: Conservative Group Bars Log Cabin Republicans From Event

Originally Posted by shrubnose

Did you get that idea from The "How to be Intolerant Handbook"?




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

You posting that is a perfect example of irony

Originally Posted by Sherman123

You are exactly what is destroying our party. Mindless, dogmatic, reactionary drivel. The homosexual agenda? Good god.

PS: Their idol Barack Obama? Have you ever met a gay person in real life? Let alone a gay Republican.

What mindless drivel. If criticizing the statist notions many Republicans embrace is destroying the Republican Party, then it deserves to be destroyed. Some of us do not share the contempt the proponents of the homosexual agenda, to use Justice Scalia's term, have for the Constitution.

The only way there will ever be a constitutional right to same-sex marriage is if Anthony Kennedy and at least four other justices who have signed on to the homosexual agenda decide to concoct one out of thin air, and proclaim it. The Court did just that with abortion forty years ago, in its notoriously arbitrary decision in Roe v. Wade, so I expect it can also cook up a constitutional "right" for homosexuals to marry each other.

As to your question, I do not knowingly associate with homosexuals, nor am I interested in what political party any particular homosexual belongs to.

Originally Posted by Blemonds

You posting that is a perfect example of irony

"No one is perfect. that's why pencils have erasers."

Originally Posted by tres borrachos

Of course, using what appears to be his logic.

The behavior of the Wall Street protestors can be laid at the feet of the Democratic Party, since most of them vote for Democrats.

The actions and behaviors and words of the New Black Panthers can be laid at the feet of the Democratic Party, since most of them vote for the Democrats. Hell, let's lay George Zimmerman's behavior at the feet of the Democratic Party since he volunteered for and voted for Barack Obama.

Or it could be laid at the feet of the GOP, since most of the people that they were protesting against belong to the GOP.

It all depends on how your brain works (Or doesn't work.).

Originally Posted by Sherman123

A massive amount of progress has been lost. As much as the establishment has regained control of the party and put a tamp on the radicals it's come at the cost of 'easy' concessions like this. When GOProud was banned from CPAC barely anyone raised a peep. We've come a long way from 2008 when we had a gay rights champion as a potential front runner--and it isn't good.

I think about 2004, when Bush won like a million gay votes. Thing is, the dems did nothing to earn those votes. Kerry wasn't gonna stop or even discourage the wave of anti gay laws. I think back to 2008 and palin just had to say "i agree" in the debate, about joe biden opposing gay rights.

So i think about 2016, and dems have still done very little to earn those votes, except the repub contenders are so extremely anti gay that all the dems have to do is show some sympathy and that's it, they get the votes.

I mean all the repubs would have to do now is shut up about it. They don't have to like or accept homosexuality, but if they would just *tolerate* it, they'd be in roughly the same position as the dems who up until very recently were guilty of the same intolerance

Originally Posted by Fiddytree

I'm guessing you've never seen this before. Scroll to the bottom for a list of names and their positions. It was an impressive showing.







Kenneth B. Mehlman Et Al

No, I had not seen it, but I understand the cases and constitutional arguments in it pretty well. Justice Kennedy seems to be leading the charge for the "no rational basis" equal protection argument, which is probably the one the Court will rely on if and when it decrees a constitutional "right" for homosexuals to marry each other. It seems to be part of the basis for the majority opinion he authored in Windsor, and he used variants of it in his opinions in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 and in Romer v. Evans in 1996. It can be traced back to Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986, in which he claimed that the belief of a majority that an act is immoral and unacceptable is not reason enough to make the act illegal.

As Justice Scalia observed in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence, Stevens' idea is radical--at odds with what had been taken for granted in every state in this country for 200 years, and with the norms of every civilized society. I think Scalia was dead right. The belief of a majority in a state that an act--adult incest, bestiality, bigamy, prostitution, adultery, etc.--is immoral and unacceptable IS a rational basis for a law against it, just as it always had been thought to be. Where most of the people in a state believe it is immoral and unacceptable for two persons of the same sex to marry each other, they should be free to exclude such couples from the state's marriage law. And in states where most people do not believe that, they should be free to make same-sex marriages legal. The Court had it right in Bowers, its first "gay" decision, and it got it wrong in Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor.

Really? Is that the best argument you can concoct to support bigotry? Why not try this for size? How about the Supreme Court striking down laws that neither federal or state government has the authority to enact?

If your arguments were better, you would not need to rely on personally attacking people who disagree with them. And your statement about what the Supreme Court might do is not an argument at all.

Based on what premise?

No premise in involved--just basic constitutional law. All the powers the states did not either cede to the United States in the Constitution, or deny to themselves, are reserved to the states. The notion that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment ever meant its guarantee of equal protection to apply to homosexual marriage does not even pass the laugh test, but statists do not give a damn about the Constitution. For them it is just a tool for making their experiments in centralized social engineering look legitimate.

ONly if one does not mind certain people deprived of their freedom.

Let me get out my violin. Everyone in this country is deprived of some freedom by his state's laws every day, without those laws violating anything in the Constitution. Next you'll be trying to tell us the vehicle statute that makes you stop at red lights deprives you of your liberty of movement without due process of law.

Originally Posted by prometeus

No, the proponents of the existence of homosexual agenda are ignorant bigots.

The phrase is Justice Scalia's, from Lawrence v. Texas, and it is an accurate description. The fact you would slander him as an "ignorant bigot" shows just how weak your game is.


"Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct."