Social conservatives outraged over Portman's support for gay marriage

itshappening

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2007
Messages
12,355
The Republican National Committee’s support of Senator Rob Portman’s flip on gay marriage has infuriated social conservatives.

Though they don’t doubt that RNC chairman Reince Priebus is on their side, some say his vocal praise on Monday of Portman’s new stance could alienate values voters.

“I think [the RNC] should pretty much ignore him,” says Phyllis Schlafly, a longtime conservative activist, in an interview with National Review Online. “I think he has made a mistake, and he probably won’t get reelected.”

Ralph Reed, the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, says the party has to be careful. “If the Republican party tries to retreat from being a pro-marriage, pro-family party, the big tent is going to become a pup tent very fast,” he says. “I am concerned that some in the party are going wobbly on this issue.”

A source familiar with Ohioans’ response to Portman’s decision tells NRO that 60 percent of the calls the office received were against Portman’s shift and 40 percent of calls received were in support.

Schlafly, for her part, isn’t impressed. “Portman was one of their stars when he won, and he was supposed to be so very smart,” she says, “and I find it hard to believe the stupidity of his statement.”

Other social conservatives share her ire. Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, says Portman will likely face a primary challenger. “He will have a primary because this is too critical of an issue for a Republican senator to abandon,” he says.

Brown also thinks the RNC has “definitely” been too soft on Portman. “This is a critical issue, and to act like it’s just no big deal is just wrong,” he says.

Brown believes the RNC should withhold financial support from Portman and any other senators who change their views to support gay marriage.“The grassroots of the party are 100 percent committed to protecting marriage, to protecting life, the whole platform,” he says, “and you can’t just kick them to the curb.”

Gary Bauer, a former Republican presidential candidate and the head of American Values, agrees. He says the party’s leadership is taking its Evangelical base for granted — and that that’s a big mistake.

“I just think right now there is a lot of concern in the party about both satisfying the money wing of the party and keeping libertarians on board and I believe they are clueless to how close the party is to losing the energy and the votes of its largest voting bloc, which are values conservatives,” Bauer says.

“What we shouldn’t do is say to the electorate, ‘Just tell us what you want us to be! We’ll change for you! Just tell us what you want us to do, we’ll do it!’” he adds. “That’s not a political party, that’s just a bunch of pandering idiots.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...-rnc-don-t-be-pandering-idiots-betsy-woodruff
-

This goes to show you that you walk a fine line in the GOP with values voters and that you need to keep them on side which can sometimes be difficult for us young libertarians.
 
Are people who are stupid enough to single issue gay marriage (I'm probably accidentally insulting some of my own family members here) really worth trying to get on board?

Honestly, we shouldn't pander to idiocy. I'm not even pro-gay marriage (I'm against the idea of government defining marriage, but if they are going to do it I'd like them to define it correctly [That is, between a man and a woman]and then have something else, such as civil unions, for same-sex couples.) But I think people who single issue gay marriage are just dumb and politically illiterate.

Everyone I know of who would be anywhere near "Single issue SSM" category (I don't even think they were radical enough to vote SOLELY on this issue, although I'm not sure) all loved Rick Santorum. I've found few to none who didn't hate Ron Paul's excellent foreign policy as well.

Then again, it doesn't matter. There is no way to win in this system. When people are complaining about the name of freaking pickles but not about the NDAA, you can't really win. Better to just bust some heads with a good candidate and force the Republicans to keep losing.

If Ron Paul would have run as an Independent Obama would have won a blowout and Romney would have probably only gotten 100 electoral votes. Even hating Obama as I do, spiting the "Small government" (Meaning, actually big government) GOP establishment is a virtue in itself.
 
Last edited:
I hope a real conservative primaries this spineless POS.

To be honest I dont really see it as an issue but I know for religious people it's a critical issue... like abortion.

This is the problem libertarians face in the GOP. Most of us don't care about these issues but there are lots of older social conservatives who are absolutely militant about it and I think it can be damaging in that politicians feel the need to appeal to them and thus they end up coming up with stupid statements like Akin and Mourdoch did on abortion.
 
To be honest I dont really see it as an issue but I know for religious people it's a critical issue... like abortion.

Not only am I religious, my dad's a pastor! I care quite a bit about abortion although I wouldn't single issue it... But gay marriage? Who cares... If I ever ran for Federal office I'd refuse to answer questions about it on principle since its both useless and a state-level issue.
 
Not only am I religious, my dad's a pastor! I care quite a bit about abortion although I wouldn't single issue it... But gay marriage? Who cares... If I ever ran for Federal office I'd refuse to answer questions about it on principle since its both useless and a state-level issue.

How would you answer a question on abortion?
 
Now someone like Portman is going to be labeled a libertarian, and libertarians will be known as Republicans who support gay marriage. People will be called libertarians who support preemptive war, the war on drugs, the police state, and all of these other statist policies. This is just a way for big government neo-conservative Republicans to try to hijack libertarianism.
 
How would you answer a question on abortion?

Assuming I was a politician, and so actually cared to some extent about balancing honesty with electability, I'd probably say something along the lines of "My personal belief is that it is murder, however the constitution doesn't give the Federal government any authority to regulate abortion and so as per the tenth amendment a state should be allowed to decide whether or not they agree with me that its murder and pass laws accordingly" or something. I probably wouldn't mention that I theoretically would support a Federal ban if there were enough support to amend the constitution since I think the likelihood of that happening is next to nil.... So I wouldn't really bother to mention it.

The reason I'd answer the abortion question and not the SSM question (I'd say "State's rights" in response to SSM, but wouldn't say anything else at the Federal level) is because, while abortion is a state issue its also an important issue, at least in my opinion. It is worth talking about. Gay marriage just has so much fanaticism and it doesn't matter that much any reasonable way you spin it. I'm sick of radical gay rights advocates (Note, those are different descriptors, you can be a gay rights advocate without being radical) pretending like their issue is the most important in the world and that hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East murdered or overflowing prison populations because of drug wars are next to irrelevant compared to their sacred right to marry other men. Honestly, I might, might agree with them if it wasn't for the fanatics. Its literally insane. They've made me completely apathetic. At the same time, radical social conservatives (Again, different descriptors, you can be a soc con without being radical.... See Rand Paul) think that Sodom is going to be repeated, nevermind that it had nothing to do with SSM, and that we're all going to get destroyed if we don't ban it. To them, everything, even abortion, an issue I actually think they have a point on, is less important than SSM. NOTHING can stand in the way of SSM being banned.

Its all a ton of hyperbole on both sides the way I see it. I can't stand anyone who single issues' SSM.
 
To be honest I dont really see it as an issue but I know for religious people it's a critical issue... like abortion.

This is the problem libertarians face in the GOP. Most of us don't care about these issues but there are lots of older social conservatives who are absolutely militant about it and I think it can be damaging in that politicians feel the need to appeal to them and thus they end up coming up with stupid statements like Akin and Mourdoch did on abortion.

And the stance on gay marriage is why the GOP is old and moss covered. And I'm getting older myself so that's saying something. Does anyone really give a flying flip anymore who gets married and who doesn't? It seems to me like it's like trying to put a finger in the dike. (no pun intended). I wouldn't expect social conservatives to come right out and approve of it, but by being so ferociously against it says two things: "If you do not hold Christian values, you do not belong in the GOP" and "If you are gay, there is no place for you in the GOP".
 
And the stance on gay marriage is why the GOP is old and moss covered. And I'm getting older myself so that's saying something. Does anyone really give a flying flip anymore who gets married and who doesn't? It seems to me like it's like trying to put a finger in the dike. (no pun intended). I wouldn't expect social conservatives to come right out and approve of it, but by being so ferociously against it says two things: "If you do not hold Christian values, you do not belong in the GOP" and "If you are gay, there is no place for you in the GOP".


My preferred stance on gay marriage is to make marriage a purely contractual matter, and give every American (Yes, every one, even single adults, even children, heck even the unborn, anything to lower taxes) the marriage tax break simply for breathing. Starve the beast, don't give it the power to tax OR define marriage.

If I couldn't have that, I'd do civil unions across the board. With the same tax benefits.

If I couldn't do that, if I had to have the government define marriage, I would support making it between a man and a woman, but have some similar civil union for same-sex couples that had the same tax-benefits and whatnot. So if the government does have to define it, I'd prefer it to be between a man and a woman.

That said, I wouldn't refuse to vote for someone because they disagreed with me on that. It just doesn't matter to me.
 
And the stance on gay marriage is why the GOP is old and moss covered. And I'm getting older myself so that's saying something. Does anyone really give a flying flip anymore who gets married and who doesn't? It seems to me like it's like trying to put a finger in the dike. (no pun intended). I wouldn't expect social conservatives to come right out and approve of it, but by being so ferociously against it says two things: "If you do not hold Christian values, you do not belong in the GOP" and "If you are gay, there is no place for you in the GOP".

I kind of agree with you to some extent. I don't support gay marriage, but I think the GOP needs to be inclusive and welcome people into the party that disagree with us on issues like gay marriage. I thought it was ridiculous that GOP proud was excluded from CPAC. That's an organization that's basically conservative on every single issue other than gay marriage, but yet they aren't allowed to attend a conservative conference because of that one issue. I don't think that the Republican Party should come out and support gay marriage, but they shouldn't be so adamently opposed to allowing people into the party who do support gay marriage.
 
I prefer the good 'ol days when marriage was a religious institution, not a governmental one.
 
Portman is not a libertarian by any means, a solid fiscal conservative but that's it...I disagree with those who want to primary him. Few reasons...


1)Popularity-this guy will be reelected with >55-60% of the vote every time he runs, he's got a great reputation and this will probably help him with moderates who already really liked him
2)timing-2016 will be a presidential year. if rand is our nominee, having portman on the ballot will be a strength to rand
3)Sherrod Brown-conservative activists will probably want Jim Jordan (who has shared many anti-gay sentiments) who is a GREAT fiscal conservative to primary Portman. I say save him for the 2018 race against Sherrod Brown, which will be a great opportunity for a pickup in an off-year. Brown underperformed Obama and barely cracked 50% this time around
 
I kind of agree with you to some extent. I don't support gay marriage, but I think the GOP needs to be inclusive and welcome people into the party that disagree with us on issues like gay marriage. I thought it was ridiculous that GOP proud was excluded from CPAC. That's an organization that's basically conservative on every single issue other than gay marriage, but yet they aren't allowed to attend a conservative conference because of that one issue. I don't think that the Republican Party should come out and support gay marriage, but they shouldn't be so adamently opposed to allowing people into the party who do support gay marriage.

You're confusing CPAC with the GOP. CPAC have their own reasons not to invite GOProud because their sponsors will not stand for it.
 
I'm kind of curious what ItsHappening thinks about my response.

I think you nailed it and that's the correct position. The problem is these social conservatives while not the whole GOP are a significant faction and they will always demand a more extreme position or more extreme rhetoric which leads to stupid statements from Akin and Mourdoch and which costs the GOP.
 
I think you nailed it and that's the correct position. The problem is these social conservatives while not the whole GOP are a significant faction and they will always demand a more extreme position or more extreme rhetoric which leads to stupid statements from Akin and Mourdoch and which costs the GOP.

Mourdoch's comment wasn't extreme at all, though. It was blown up and distorted by the progressive media. If you are a Christian you believe that all life is a gif from God, even those children conceived in rape are a blessing.
 
Mourdoch's comment wasn't extreme at all, though. It was blown up and distorted by the progressive media. If you are a Christian you believe that all life is a gif from God, even those children conceived in rape are a blessing.

Yeah, but it was interpreted as saying rape is a gift from God. That's what hurt him. But either way, it's best not to bring up religion when talking about abortion and instead talk about science and liberty for the unborn.
 
Back
Top