Republicans for Gay Unions.

[Mr. Harley]

The Religious Right and it's hijacking of the Republican party gets all the attention these days. But there ARE still social moderates in the party, who realize that there is a proud socially progressive tradition in the party.

So far all gay unions have been court orders. In Vermont this has resulted in civil unions, and in Massachusetts gay marriage. Two years ago legislation to permit gay civil unions failed to get out out of judiciary committee in Connecticut. Now that has changed.

I just listened to Andrew Roraback, a Republican state senator who from the context must be on that judiciary committe - it is joint from both houses. He stated, in an NPR interview broadcast on Monday. He is for the gay civil unions.

I was in Vermont before there were civil unions, I’ve been in Vermont since there were Civil Unions, the state looks the same to me, the state feels the same to me, my guess is if this passes in Connecticut it will be old news before we know it.

By the way, I consider NPR a moderate news source, they did not ask him any kind of leading questions and let him state his opinion (unlike much of the right and the rare left wing media outlet in the US). In fact they painted the governor's (Jodi Rell - Republican) opinion as more positive than I would have, showing how they were bending over backwards to be fair. They stated that she has voiced her support of civil unions.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, has not said whether she would sign the bill, saying she would study the precise wording if it comes to her desk. Rell has said she is in favor of civil rights for same-sex couples but believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

That was quoted from a gay source, which is slightly more guarded. Still, I do get the impression as long as the legislation is not to over-reaching, by her definition, she will sign it.

Please note - I support gay marraige, but I also believe in Real Politik and will be happy to see it before I die. As with any social change, it's only going to happen gradually, especially in the current divisive atmosphere in the United States.

[Sava]

"Republicans for gay marriage" sounds a lot like "Nazis for Jew tolerance"

the moderates should just abandon the party and create their own party... as long as they maintain their evil union with the wicked Religious Right, they are only compromising with evil and bigotry. And people who compromise with evil are just as bad.

[Odin]

"Liberal Republican" has become an oxymoron in this day and age. Minnesota is one of the few places that still has a bunch of them left (most of our living former governers, both Republican and Democrat voted for Kerry). Former Republican governor and philanthropist Elmer Anderson, who recently passed away, was an example. Now, with the election of Senator Coleman and Governor Pawlenty shows that the Liberal Republicans are fading away even here in Minnesota, once a bastion of progessivism, because the Republicans have latched on to the socially consrvative (but support the Democrats on the economy) folks in the western and southern parts of the state. What happened to all the New Deal and Great Society Democrats that have dominated Minnesota for so long? Sucked into the quagmire of morality politics no doubt.

[Ming]

Not all republicans are religious zealots... many are moderate or even liberal on many social issues...

Not all democrats are socialists or far left radicals...

Both parties have many members who lean more toward the middle than the extremes.

[Sava]

lies!

[Ming]

Originally posted by Sava
lies!

[Patroklos]

Sava, the personification of the left's death rattle

[Sava]

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ming

Not all republicans are religious zealots... many are moderate or even liberal on many social issues...

Not all democrats are socialists or far left radicals...

Both parties have many members who lean more toward the middle than the extremes.

I think the majority of Americans are "Communitarians" (not to be confused with Communist ), aka "religious progressives", socially to the right, but economically to the left. The Republicans have been wining because of social issues.

[Agathon]

Republicans hate both gays and unions. So it is no surprise that they'd hate gay unions.

Who didn't know that.

[Ming]

I think you will find many that are socially to the left, but economically on the right... That's where I am

I am pro choice...
The problem I have with welfare is how the program is run, not that I'm against the concept...
I have no problem with gay "marriages"...

But on economic issues, I'm conservative.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Odin
I think the majority of Americans are "Communitarians" (not to be confused with Communist ), aka "religious progressives", socially to the right, but economically to the left. The Republicans have been wining because of social issues.

I doubt it. Clinton's health plan was defeated because of religion.

[Japher]

I'm with Ming
(and not because he'd ban me if I wasn't)

A another, more important, note: Republicans for Gay Unions would make an interesting acronym, RGU... pronounced "argue"

I am so insightful, you are welcome.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ming
Not all republicans are religious zealots... many are moderate or even liberal on many social issues...

Not all democrats are socialists or far left radicals...

Both parties have many members who lean more toward the middle than the extremes.

Not all republicans are religious zealots, just the ones that got Georgey elected again.

Christian republicans are the US' moral savior, doncha know.

Boy scout leaders, priests...they make the world a better place.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Asher
Not all republicans are religious zealots, just the ones that got Georgey elected again.

Wrong... the religious zealots by themselves don't have enough clout to win a national election by themselves. If the dems had put up a moderate that the more reasonable republicans could have voted for... Bush would be in retirement already... Kerry wasn't that man.

[Sava]

it's strange that this thread had little activity around the time I made my first post, but then it blew up...

Ming: if I may make a somewhat serious point, my characterization of the repuke party is primarily a troll (just in case you didn't know that already)... I don't seriously believe most of the stuff I post. I do so mainly to get stupid people to bite my trolls

On an intellectual level, I know that not all Repub's are religious nuts and whatnot... when I rant, I'm usually directing my rantings at the elements within the Repub party that irk me. It's just easier to generalize and aim my complaints at all repukes instead of singling out the individual elements that are the source of my disdain.

[Asher]

"Religious zealots" = 60% of US pop.

[Japher]

it's strange that this thread had little activity around the time I made my first post, but then it blew up...

That's cause your such a good Troll, Sava... Pat yourself on your back..

[Sava]

Originally posted by Japher


That's cause your such a good Troll, Sava... Pat yourself on your back..

[Ming]

Sava... troll... Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

And Asher... if 60% of the US pop were really religious zealots, it would be against the law to be gay, and the penality would be stoning or death

[Agathon]

The problem I have with welfare is how the program is run, not that I'm against the concept...

If I had a dollar for every time I'd heard that...

What's your proposal then? Every time I hear this, the supposed solution would cost far more than the present system.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
What's your proposal then? Every time I hear this, the supposed solution would cost far more than the present system.

I don't have a problem with the "cost"... it's the system, where it is better in many cases NOT to work.
I want a system that encourages self improvement, and provides a chance to get OFF welfare.

While the Wisconsin model isn't perfect, and has it flaws... it's a step in the right direction.

[Japher]

Gavin "Any Twosome" Newsom's Care not Cash program is right on the money.

Any system that gives people who are poor MONEY to spend however they want is stupid. Food stamps are great, but that system is also flawed to the core, and it don't really pay rent. Section 8 housing even has a *cha-ching* sound to it for greedy RE developers. Why? Because weldfare is messed up.

Give the ppl a place to live, food, clothes, showers, skills, etc... Not a bottle of milk for the kid, a flask of whiskey for the weather, and a blanket for the meantime. Yaaay!

You should see the line at the bank on the first of the month around my house.

[Mr. Harley]

All of you US Moderates, especially those that vote Republican, one question for you - do you vote in your primaries? If you do, If you don't, you are one of the morons who have given the religious right control of the party, because they get their butts out and vote.

[Spiffor]

BTW, was there a token Republican candidate against Bush this time, or was no Republican primary organized at all?

[Sava]

there was no primary

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Spiffor
BTW, was there a token Republican candidate against Bush this time, or was no Republican primary organized at all?

He's a sitting President. Usually there is no primary opponent against one.

[Dinner]

There was a primary but no one else bothered to run.

Everyone knows the primary system is rigged in favor of the extremists. American politics have to fundimental and debilitating problems: 1) Letting politicians redistrict their own districts means politicians pick voters instead of voters picking politicians. Jerry mandering to prevent the people expressing their will is the rule not the exception. 2) Closed primaries result in only extremist candidates ever running for office. Open primaries would result in more moderate and less partisan people being elected and it would mean the will of more American voters would actually be carried out.

Changing redistricting rules so that a nonpartisan panel controls it (instead of allowing encumbants to rig everything in their favor) and making every primary and open primary are two necissary changes that must be made if we are to continue to be a democracy. The two parties have stacked the deck so that no other parties can win anything and they jerry mandered the districts to the point where the elections cannot be called creditable.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Closed primaries result in only extremist candidates ever running for office. Open primaries would result in more moderate and less partisan people being elected and it would mean the will of more American voters would actually be carried out.

(Beating the Europeans) Why should political parties open their voting process to everyone? They are private organizations and should be allowed to pick their own candidates internally.

[Dinner]

The primaries should be open because currently the two parties have passed laws effectively preventing the creation of meanful third parties. Millions of people have been disinfranchized and the winner takes all system is designed to prevent third parties from ever holding office. The only way this can be changed and the partisanship (which is destroying our country) be toned down is through open primaries.

Preventing jerry mandering of districts is certainly the most necissary reform and one which will be most strongly opposed by the two parties. California is at least trying to deal with this but Republicans fanatically oppose it in states like Texas where they have effectively made elections meaningless.