• 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!

For Republicans/Conservatives: Party Support and SSM

How would it affect your vote if the republican party did not oppose SSM?


  • Total voters
    32

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,907
Reaction score
60,364
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Social conservatives warn Priebus they could abandon GOP - First Read

Much of the conservatives' letter to Priebus stresses the issue of gay rights, and challenges the logic of the Growth and Opportunity Project's advice to broaden the party's appeal. Holding the line against same-sex marriage, the letter argues, would allow Republicans to make better inroads, for instance, into more traditionally-minded corners of the African American community.
...
"We respectfully warn GOP Leadership that an abandonment of its principles will necessarily result in the abandonment of our constituents to their support," concludes the letter, which was obtained by and independently verified by NBC News in advance of the meeting this week.

In the week since this report came out, the RNC resolution committee passed a resolution reaffirming support for a constitutional amendment banning SSM. I should also mention for clarity that part of the letter dealt with abortion, but by reports the primary focus was on same sex marriage. I am not trying to misrepresent the letter, but focusing on the part that actually interests me.

Now, my question, for those who vote republican all or much of the time: would you withdraw your support from the republican party, voting for another party or not at all, if the republican party did not oppose same sex marriage? Please only vote in the poll if you vote republican at least regularly, say 1/3 of the time or more. Not getting votes from those who rarely vote republican is not a big thing.
 
Last edited:
Re: For Repubicans/Conservatives: Party Support and SSM

"Repubicans"

Cute. When did you start listening to Mark Levin?
 
Re: For Repubicans/Conservatives: Party Support and SSM

Now, my question, for those who vote republican all or much of the time: would you withdraw your support from the republican party, voting for another party or not at all, if the republican party did not oppose same sex marriage?

No. I would switch churches, because I think that adherence to Scripture vice public pressure is pretty important (for the record, this puts me way outside the American mainstream on the subject of divorce, which Jesus was pretty clear on, and which churches generally today ignore). But it is not a more important political issue than (for example) infanticide or the need to avoid a european style welfare state collapse. Democrats are (generally) on the wrong side of both of those issues, and I cannot see myself being willing to give them a freer hand in them.
 
Re: For Repubicans/Conservatives: Party Support and SSM

There are too many other things they want to do that I just can't stomach. It wouldn't change my vote.

I'm always open to voting for an *individual* of any party. But if we're just talking about the most generic party line Republican? Nope.
 
Social conservatives warn Priebus they could abandon GOP - First Read



In the week since this report came out, the RNC resolution committee passed a resolution reaffirming support for a constitutional amendment banning SSM. I should also mention for clarity that part of the letter dealt with abortion, but by reports the primary focus was on same sex marriage. I am not trying to misrepresent the letter, but focusing on the part that actually interests me.

Now, my question, for those who vote republican all or much of the time: would you withdraw your support from the republican party, voting for another party or not at all, if the republican party did not oppose same sex marriage? Please only vote in the poll if you vote republican at least regularly, say 1/3 of the time or more. Not getting votes from those who rarely vote republican is not a big thing.


Who are these social conservatives going to vote for if not the GOP? It's an empty threat.
 
those who vote republican all or much of the time... Please only vote in the poll if you vote republican at least regularly, say 1/3 of the time or more. Not getting votes from those who rarely vote republican is not a big thing.

I never vote for Democrats (there was one exception, on a municipal level). So I guess I qualify, even though I vote for third-party candidates with zero chances or do write-ins half of the time.

Yes, of course, it would make me more likely to vote Republican. It is only one issue, but it goes to the core of Republican identity: are they a party of individualism and freedom of choice, or another statist party offering a slightly different pattern of control and oppression?
 
Who are these social conservatives going to vote for if not the GOP? It's an empty threat.

Keep your fingers crossed. Social conservatives had cooperated with the worst elements of the Left in the past - and gave us such wonders of Progressivism as the Prohibition, the immigration shutdown and the Monkey Trial. They could unite once again.
 
Keep your fingers crossed. Social conservatives had cooperated with the worst elements of the Left in the past - and gave us such wonders of Progressivism as the Prohibition, the immigration shutdown and the Monkey Trial. They could unite once again.

Prohibition was a progressive issue, but neither the Scopes Trial nor anti-immigration were. (Latin American exclusion was the province of both industrial unionists in the West and that great libertarian Calvin Coolidge.)

As for the thread in question, I almost never vote for Republicans, but I could vote for a pro-choice, pro-SSM Republican as easily as I vote for a pro-choice, pro-SSM Democrat.
 
Social conservatives warn Priebus they could abandon GOP - First Read



In the week since this report came out, the RNC resolution committee passed a resolution reaffirming support for a constitutional amendment banning SSM. I should also mention for clarity that part of the letter dealt with abortion, but by reports the primary focus was on same sex marriage. I am not trying to misrepresent the letter, but focusing on the part that actually interests me.

Now, my question, for those who vote republican all or much of the time: would you withdraw your support from the republican party, voting for another party or not at all, if the republican party did not oppose same sex marriage? Please only vote in the poll if you vote republican at least regularly, say 1/3 of the time or more. Not getting votes from those who rarely vote republican is not a big thing.

The morons lost me awhile ago by spending like drunkin sailors. Screw em. I only vote for the Tea party variety anymore. I am Taxed Enough Already. When the Republicans at large start talking about the US CAFR report and how only 1/3 of the revenue the US collects is via taxation then they may woo me back till then the a mainstream variety are in the doghouse. Personally I could care less about social issues right now. Theres plenty of ammunition just with the budget process to not even bother with the social issues.
 
Keep your fingers crossed. Social conservatives had cooperated with the worst elements of the Left in the past - and gave us such wonders of Progressivism as the Prohibition, the immigration shutdown and the Monkey Trial. They could unite once again.

I really can't see that being the case this go round. Turn on a SSM GOPer and run to the open arms of the LGBT abortionists?
 
As a paleocon libertarian who looks at each libertarian and each GOP candidates' specific views on several key issues before casting a ballot, I can safely say that ones' statements on this matter does not alter my opinion one way or the other.


What is likely to get my attention in a positive way is a federal politician who states simply that he's going for a federal office, therefore his opinion on marriage is irrelevant. Otherwise, any sort of advocacy for any sort of legislation is a negative, but it's a fairly minor and extremely widespread negative that doesn't factor into voting calculus very heavily.
 
Prohibition was a progressive issue, but neither the Scopes Trial nor anti-immigration were. (Latin American exclusion was the province of both industrial unionists in the West and that great libertarian Calvin Coolidge.

What "Latin American exclusion?" Latin Americans were not blocked from immigration by the 1924 Act - Eastern and Southern Europeans and Asians were "the enemy". And yes, it was a "progressive issue", most definitely: it was entirely in the spirit of eugenic amelioration of society by the actions of wise, 'scientifically' guided Lippmannian government - and had massive support both from the Republicans Progressives and Democrats on the left - Samuel Gompers, the founder of AFL being easily the most influential figure.

(Coolidge did sign the Act, after it was passed by overwhelming margin, but called for removal of restrictions on the Japanese - predicting - what a wild thought! - a deterioration of relationships between the two countries).

As the Scopes Trial - I dunno, does William Jennings Bryan qualify as a Progressive? A Democratic presidential candidate (three times), Secretary of State under Wilson, trust-buster, prohibitionist (and promoter of the Harrison Act against opiates) - and the prosecutor in Tennessee v. Scopes...

Progressivism was not uniform, and Wilson, for example, was skeptical of aggressive nativism - and had vetoed, just like Taft, early attempts to curtail immigration, while Bryan denounced eugenics popular with fellow Progressives like Davenport or Sanger - or President Wilson.

But the potency of the left-right statist fusion was on display in most every Progressive cause beyond women's suffrage.
 
I really can't see that being the case this go round. Turn on a SSM GOPer and run to the open arms of the LGBT abortionists?

We have a substantial number of the anti-outsider, socially conservative, ultra-protectionist Democrats who stick with the party only because they are convinced that Republicans will always favor "the fat cats".

Likewise, we have plenty of "religious conservatives" who have nothing in common with the pro-business faction of the GOP, not to mention libertarians. They just cannot be seen in the same room with Tammy Baldwin.

These two sizeable forces are made for each other. All they need is a charismatic leader capable of "rising above the party labels". In France, it was Le Pen. I am not saying our left- and right-wing extremists are in the same state of desperation and confusion as the French ex-Stalinists, but...I am mildly apprehensive about the possibility.
 
And yes, it was a "progressive issue", most definitely: it was entirely in the spirit of eugenic amelioration of society by the actions of wise, 'scientifically' guided Lippmannian government - and had massive support both from the Republicans Progressives and Democrats on the left - Samuel Gompers, the founder of AFL being easily the most influential figure.

You do realize that eugenics had the full support of conservative southern Democrats who were neither progressive nor thought of themselves as being progressive in any way, right? And that there were full-blown Progressives opposed to it, including William Jennings Bryan?

I loathe historical whitewashers like yourself who want to place the full blame of the excesses of that era on the Progressive movement because you mistakenly think it helps your own cause look better in this time.

(Coolidge did sign the Act, after it was passed by overwhelming margin, but called for removal of restrictions on the Japanese - predicting - what a wild thought! - a deterioration of relationships between the two countries).

Coolidge signed it regardless, and his concerns with the Japanese were purely practical: he had no opposition to the spirit of the reform (because he wasn't a modern libertarian, as modern libertarians have had to twist him out of shape to make him resemble them.)

As the Scopes Trial - I dunno, does William Jennings Bryan qualify as a Progressive A Democratic presidential candidate (three times), Secretary of State under Wilson, trust-buster, prohibitionist (and promoter of the Harrison Act against opiates) - and the prosecutor in Tennessee v. Scopes...

By 1925? Absolutely not. His opponent, Clarence Darrow, certainly was. But you'll not mention him, because he wasn't borderline-tyrannical in his disposition and therefore it's not helpful to single him out.
 
We have a substantial number of the anti-outsider, socially conservative, ultra-protectionist Democrats who stick with the party only because they are convinced that Republicans will always favor "the fat cats".

Likewise, we have plenty of "religious conservatives" who have nothing in common with the pro-business faction of the GOP, not to mention libertarians. They just cannot be seen in the same room with Tammy Baldwin.

These two sizeable forces are made for each other. All they need is a charismatic leader capable of "rising above the party labels". In France, it was Le Pen. I am not saying our left- and right-wing extremists are in the same state of desperation and confusion as the French ex-Stalinists, but...I am mildly apprehensive about the possibility.

Yes, you are right, anything can happen. We see that now. I suppose I'm letting my cynicism get the better of me, I'm sure there is still an electoral appetite for a Cotton Mather type...
 
As a lifelong registered Republican who votes, not based on party affiliation, but on actual platform, it probably doesn't matter overall. However, just on that one particular point, if the RNC would reject it's opposition to gay marriage, I'd probably be more apt to vote for a Republican candidate more often, all other things being equal. Right after the election, the GOP sent out a questionnaire to all registered Republicans, asking what direction they ought to take. As I predicted, and I even told them so, they entirely ignored the position of anyone who didn't fall into the old-time-religious-retard brigade. They're not really interested in victory, they just want ideological purity.
 
Social conservatives warn Priebus they could abandon GOP - First Read



In the week since this report came out, the RNC resolution committee passed a resolution reaffirming support for a constitutional amendment banning SSM. I should also mention for clarity that part of the letter dealt with abortion, but by reports the primary focus was on same sex marriage. I am not trying to misrepresent the letter, but focusing on the part that actually interests me.

Now, my question, for those who vote republican all or much of the time: would you withdraw your support from the republican party, voting for another party or not at all, if the republican party did not oppose same sex marriage? Please only vote in the poll if you vote republican at least regularly, say 1/3 of the time or more. Not getting votes from those who rarely vote republican is not a big thing.

I am an independent who largely swings conservative, but I vote for individuals, and this has often mean that I have voted for a Democrat and also that I have been a co-campaign manager for a Libertarian. I can't withdraw support to the GOP because I don't support any party.

There are many who regard the guarantee that all Americans have equal rights under the law is essential. And the ability to make medical decisions or to inherit or to retain custody of children is very important. The SSM is one factor I would consider, but it's not my litmus test.
 
You do realize that eugenics had the full support of conservative southern Democrats ?

That was kind of my point, no?

Still: I doubt your average Klansman was versed in Galton and Madison Grant, but Margaret Sanger certainly was.

Not that "Southern conservatives" and Progressives were all that incompatible: the same Woodraw Wilson was a Dixiecrat through-and-through - and had introduced segregation in federal government. (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102026945151)


I loathe historical whitewashers like yourself

Loathing must be a lot of fun, but who or what do I whitewash, exactly?

Coolidge [...] wasn't a modern libertarian.

Who says that he was? Coolidge and Mellon were at odds with a whole number of Progressive attitudes and ideas, which made them remarkable, and - from the libertarian point of view - "not bad, considering". That's all.

By 1925? Absolutely not.

What makes you say so? Whatever his other flaws, Bryan did not, er, evolve much, in his political philosophy.

His opponent, Clarence Darrow, certainly was.

Certainly was a superb professional defense lawyer - and perhaps a Progressive as well in his personal politics. Bryan, on the other hand, was the face and the heart of Democratic progressivism for decades.

I repeat again: Progressives were not all alike - just like modern socialists, libertarians or "conservatives" are not all alike. But they did share the blind faith in ability and right of the State to define and implement broad coercive reforms, to fit their ideas of "societal betterment" (that's what made them "progressives") - social conservatives and secular socialists being united in this belief, just as they are now.
 
Last edited:
Social conservatives warn Priebus they could abandon GOP - First Read



In the week since this report came out, the RNC resolution committee passed a resolution reaffirming support for a constitutional amendment banning SSM. I should also mention for clarity that part of the letter dealt with abortion, but by reports the primary focus was on same sex marriage. I am not trying to misrepresent the letter, but focusing on the part that actually interests me.

Now, my question, for those who vote republican all or much of the time: would you withdraw your support from the republican party, voting for another party or not at all, if the republican party did not oppose same sex marriage? Please only vote in the poll if you vote republican at least regularly, say 1/3 of the time or more. Not getting votes from those who rarely vote republican is not a big thing.

I consider myself a member of the Reform Party, which I guess swing voter would apply. I do vote for the candidates and abhor the two major parties. I have voted third party in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections with the exception being John McCain in 2008. But I constantly vote Republican in Georgia's senatorial elections and for the House of representatives and did vote for Purdue twice and Nathan Deal.

Now the constitutional amendment on SSM is not going anywhere and has zero chance of succeeding. I look at it as a bone thrown to the religious right which I really don't care much for. The stance means nothing. There is reality and there is playing to one's base which in this case is the religious right. SSM although I am for it, has no bearing on how I will vote. It is a very minor issue to me if it is even an issue. I like the status quo, let each state decide what they will do with SSM and keep the feds out of the marriage business.
 
Who are these social conservatives going to vote for if not the GOP?

Probably nobody. Election volunteers will turn into voters and voters will turn into fishermen.
 
It is a very minor issue to me if it is even an issue. I like the status quo, let each state decide what they will do with SSM and keep the feds out of the marriage business.

Who will issue fiancée visas for international gay couples?
 
I've been anti-Republican for a long, long time. Being anti-SSM is just another nail in the coffin for me.
 
Probably nobody. Election volunteers will turn into voters and voters will turn into fishermen.

I still don't think that will be the case. They'll hold their nose, take the plunge, pull the lever, and whimsically reminisce about an age gone by when life was so much simpler...
 
I still don't think that will be the case. They'll hold their nose, take the plunge, pull the lever, and whimsically reminisce about an age gone by when life was so much simpler...

Yeah? How'd that work out for Republicans in Ohio this last election?
 
I still don't think that will be the case. They'll hold their nose, take the plunge, pull the lever, and whimsically reminisce about an age gone by when life was so much simpler...

The older ones will probably do exactly that. But younger social conservatives will do what the young always do: seek alternatives.
 
Back
Top Bottom