http://www.365gay.com/NewsContent/092303gopGays.htm

The Republican Party national platform is expected to include a condemnation of same-sex marriage and to support a constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian couples from being wed.

"There is a lot of energy out there, a lot of concern about gay marriage," said RNC chair Ed Gillespie. "So it wouldn't surprise me if it were addressed in some form or fashion in the platform."

Gillespie, in an interview with the Washington Times accused gays of " intolerance and bigotry by attempting to force the rest of the population to accept alien moral standards." As a result, he said "tolerance is no longer defined as my accepting people for who they are."
_______________________________________________


Log Cabin apologists.....ten hut!!!

Another reason why elephant shit smells worse than donkey shit.

I thought Republicans were all about "states rights" and the absence of federal intervention unless totally necessary. Do I not understand partisan politics correctly, or does this loaded statement from the RNC not represent an ideological about face on the part of the party?

OK, all sass aside, I'm not sure most Republicans support this move. They may be testing the waters...

LCR response:
http://www.lcr.org/press/20030923.asp


Good job fellows, that'll show 'em!!

[ September 24, 2003, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

wow that LCR letter brought a tear to me eyes,,, from laughing!

[ September 24, 2003, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: p2insdca ]

Wonder what Mary Cheney thought of it...
or is she hiding out with her daddy?

Too funny indeed. Good luck L.C.R.

You guys notice how quiet the Bush apologists/right wingers got?

Actually, there is a states' rights issue, and the NRC is consistent with party ideology. If gay marriages become legal in say, Massachusetts, then other states would be forced to recognize them per the US Constitution. This would impose one state's (or its Supreme Court's) cultural standards on another. The states' rights issue, however, is less important than the greater question of gay marriage, imho.

What angers me most is that Gillespie's explanations and motivations for this position are that an anti-gay-marriage platform will energize conservative voters. This is election politics at its very worst. Instead of doing what is right and what is best for the country, the NRC wants to do what will get them the most votes at the polls. I suppose that IS the mission of the NRC, but it's still very disturbing.

Actually, what's so different in Patrick Guerriero's letter from what HRC or Stonewall Demos might write? Nothing - except the letterhead and signature, which some folks view as controlling over the substance of the letter itself.

You're right, B Man; Gillespie doesn't speak for most CA GOPers or for me. If he did, Tom McClintock would have a lock on the GOP candidacy for governor. That he doesn't shows this party is NOT within the grasp of its radical right wing. When you have solid conservatives like CA Sen. Min. Leader Jim Brulte attending LCR meetings and, this morning, endorsing Arnold over Tom, you know, if you know the facts, that things ARE getting better within the CA GOP.

Next stop: the GOP national platform committee meetings to nip this nonsense in the bud.

gmg, Gillespie may not speak for most CA Republicans, but he does speak for a large portion of the party nationwide. The NRC could care less about CA - we're a lost cause. They're looking at solidifying the South and Plains states and increasing conservative voter turnout in big swing states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

rottsa ruck