Gay marriage will destroy the GOP

[mosquitobite]

So Politico warns the GOP that it will destroy the GOP, the social conservatives whine "yes it will, but for the opposite reason!"

http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2014...y-marriage-will-destroy-the-republican-party/

The straight-up truth is that if the GOP accepts homosexual marriage, it will immediately become irrelevant. This is for the simple reason that supporters of natural marriage will abandon the party so fast it will give you a nosebleed. That giant sucking sound you will hear will be the sound of social conservatives bolting the Republican Party.

The way I see it, either way they are going the way of the whig, and fast.

 

[pmbug]

Where exactly are they going to go?

 

[ghengis86]

Uh, "wiil" destroy? The GOP has been FUBAR for a very long time. There is only one party anymore.

 

[Southron]

Social conservative leaders are married to the GOP.

I will be surprised if they abandon their lucrative business for principle.

I cant say it would break my heart to see the party of Lincoln go away.

 

[fisharmor]

Yes, it will, and for a reason neither article discusses.

Gay marriage will destroy the GOP because it is one of a handful of distractions that keep politicians from discussing actual important issues.
There are simply too many people like me and most of you at this point who are not going to vote for or against someone based strictly on this issue. We can't unsee what we've seen, which is that whether two dudes think they're each other's husbands is slightly less important than the fact that cops are burning baby faces off and nobody within the system is even saying boo.

Gay marriage will destroy the GOP because we're getting to the point where you don't even have to be libertarian to realize nobody should vote for dumbasses that think this is worthy of being on the platform anymore.

 

[Brett85]

I cant say it would break my heart to see the party of Lincoln go away.

Even if that means that the Democrats will have total control over all branches of government? It seems like having checks and balances is a good thing to me.

 

[Southron]

Even if that means that the Democrats will have total control over all branches of government? It seems like having checks and balances is a good thing to me.

I remember the Bush years and I cant see much difference between the parties. All I saw was big government marching on.

 

[Matthew5]

How many supporting members did the Boy Scouts of America lose after their gay declaration? Sure, there was alot of harrumphs to be had, but they survived. The GOP is even more firmly established.

 

[ZENemy]

well, all things come to an end.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Anyone in the GOP up to discussing how we should get government completely out of marriage? All those guys who blather on about "smaller government"...where are they on this?

 

[specsaregood]

I remember the Bush years and I cant see much difference between the parties. All I saw was big government marching on.

Ah Bush, whose former campaign manager (and giuliani's) and RNC chairman was actually gay -- which everybody secretly knew. And while campaign manager pushed for making anti-gay policies the focus of the campaign in order to secure the votes of social conservatives. Then after he was done helping kill the GOP namebrand with the neocon administration, came "out" and started pushing to repeal all the anti-gay stuff he pushed previously. lol

 

[Keith and stuff]

Anyone in the GOP up to discussing how we should get government completely out of marriage? All those guys who blather on about "smaller government"...where are they on this?

Republicans in New Hampshire tried this. The Federal government said it cannot be done on the state level without ending all federal marriage benefits for everyone in that state. You would likely need a pro-liberty President (Rand Paul) to negotiate with a pro-liberty governor or something for this to be possible. Then the state house and state senate might also need to be involved. It would be an extremely complicated process but is possible, as long as there is a pro-liberty President or a popular pro-liberty governor that goes very far out of what is considered the established power of a governor.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Even if that means that the Democrats will have total control over all branches of government? It seems like having checks and balances is a good thing to me.

If the Republican Party manages to suicide itself, something will rise to fill the vacuum. Our form of government all but requires 2 majors to operate. A one-party system could never work here even under the status quo. Not unless radical changes are made here, even from as far gone as we already are. I am hoping that the GOP comes to it's senses and starts accepting Constitutional Conservatives, or it's destruction under it's own weight is inevitable. I am trying to have ready a network to stand up and form "The Party of the Constitutional Republic" in the event that the GOP implodes itself.

 

[Acala]

Yes, it will, and for a reason neither article discusses.

Gay marriage will destroy the GOP because it is one of a handful of distractions that keep politicians from discussing actual important issues.
There are simply too many people like me and most of you at this point who are not going to vote for or against someone based strictly on this issue. We can't unsee what we've seen, which is that whether two dudes think they're each other's husbands is slightly less important than the fact that cops are burning baby faces off and nobody within the system is even saying boo.

Gay marriage will destroy the GOP because we're getting to the point where you don't even have to be libertarian to realize nobody should vote for dumbasses that think this is worthy of being on the platform anymore.

This^

 

[Acala]

Anyone in the GOP up to discussing how we should get government completely out of marriage? All those guys who blather on about "smaller government"...where are they on this?

And this^

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Republicans in New Hampshire tried this. The Federal government said it cannot be done on the state level without ending all federal marriage benefits for everyone in that state. You would likely need a pro-liberty President (Rand Paul) to negotiate with a pro-liberty governor or something for this to be possible. Then the state house and state senate might also need to be involved. It would be an extremely complicated process but is possible, as long as there is a pro-liberty President or a popular pro-liberty governor that goes very far out of what is considered the established power of a governor.

The Southern States are about to have no other choice. The Federal Courts are seeing to that.

We could have banned licensure in NC in 2011 when we had 95% of the Dems on board and before the idea had crossed Washington's radar. Such a minor amendment over more than 2 centuries of history, but ignoring that moment will go down in history as a folly. Now when the stone comes around, we'll have to fight for every inch of it, when we could have driven a 100 yard return back in 2011. These establishmentarians just don't get that it's a different world today and they don't understand it. They know they are doing wrong but they keep doing the wrong things and telling us with the actual answers to go home and stop bothering them.

That sounds hopeless, at first, but it isn't. It is less important to WIN today than it is for us to be right, and for them to know in retrospect that we were right. Because a serious crisis is coming, and we need to be the first people they think of when it comes. And we need to be prepared to be constructive in THAT day; and save the mockery of the idiots for the next election after when we sweep the nation.

The thing is, we're the ones trying to stop the crisis all along. Since they won't heed our warnings, then use the crisis to restore a national respect for the Constitution. Be right when they are wrong, and when it all hits the fan, rub their (the established powers) face in it like a misbehaving dog, and rally the voters against that irresponsible lot.

It can be done.