Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Saturday, October 1, 2016

To put the Republican Party’s relationship with the Tea Party in Facebook terms, “It’s complicated.”

But the Tea Party may be ready to change its status to “Single.”

First Michigan’s Republican Party chairman faced a challenge from a Tea Party candidate that he only survived because Republican governor Rick Snyder flew home from Washington, DC to save him. Now the Republican chairman in Ohio is about to face a similar challenge as the tri-corner-hatted wing of the party aches to show its displeasure with Governor John Kasich.

For those of you who don’t live in the Midwest, you may not know that Snyder and Kasich have both implemented a far-right agenda that had the Koch brothers high-fiving so often that their butlers had to start doing it on their behalf.

Both tried to bust unions, both cut taxes for business and both shrank social services. As Scott Walker got the nation’s attention, they implemented like-minded policies. As a result, job growth in Michigan and Ohio has largely relied on President Obama’s wildly successful auto rescue, which renewed the region’s economy.

But the two governors face difficult re-elections in their states, which both went for Obama… twice. So both are trying to get their state legislatures to accept Medicaid expansion, the first policy either has pursued that would definitely create jobs (and save lives). But Michigan’s Tea Party legislators have rejected Snyder’s plan and Ohio is likely to do the same.

Both governors need to win statewide elections. Their state’s Tea Partiers, meanwhile, have been safely ensconced in gerrymandered districts they can only lose to someone who has a better Ronald Reagan tattoo.

And this is the Republican Party’s essential crisis. They’ve redistricted themselves into legislative majorities, yet they can’t win statewide and national elections unless they infuriate the extremists they’ve redrawn the map to protect.

So how do you keep a party torn between those needing to govern and those elected to prevent governing?

You stick to the easy stuff — like hating gays.

At a Republican National Committee meeting in Los Angeles on Friday, members unanimously voted to reaffirm its stand against same-sex marriage. The vote added to the language in the 2012 platform, urging the Supreme Court to “uphold the sanctity of marriage” in their rulings on Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act.

Whose idea was it to make it super-clear that the GOP is still the party that wants government to be just small enough to fit between two consenting American adults who want to marry?

Dave Agema — the committeeman who shared a vile homophobic post that referenced neo-Nazi propaganda on his Facebook page.

LOL.

  • charleo1

    As Republicans are learning, it’s not nice to fool Mother Democracy.

    • angelsinca

      You can do better than this, Charles. I’ve seen you compose intelligent and compelling arguments. This sophmoric anti-republican baffoonery is such obvious BS, not even you should be believing it. Good one-liner though.

  • So much for smaller and less intrusive government. One of the most remarkable dichotomies in GOP rhetoric involves their claim of being champions of smaller government, while insisting on government policies designed to advance their ideological priorities: banning abortion, banning same sex marriage, ending affirmative action, privatizing social programs, rejecting gun control, etc. Their real goal is not smaller government, but a government capable of advancing and supporting their agenda at the expense of the majority.

    • RobertCHastings

      Their real goal is a government that will intrude itself into every home and bedroom in the country to enforce ONLY conservative religious values. Those values that have drawn religious conservatives to the party in the past are what are keeping the party afloat today.

      • Independent1

        The unfortunate part is that these supposedly “religious” values are only Christian values in the minds of millions of misguded conservatives.

        • RobertCHastings

          Independent1, thank you for your validation. However, the values we both apparently deplore are NOT Christian values. They have nothing to do with the teachings of Christ, and those who espouse them should kinow that.

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    Republicans are men. Albeit, peculiar men with peculiar ideas of reality. That doesn’t stop these bully bois from their below the surface hatred for anyone who is “different” be it race, religion or gender. So their homophobia is just an extension of their real problem…a deepened sense of male inadequacy they think can be dispelled by a show of masculine power. These bois are so threatened by the outside world that they are willing to create their own version of democracy to suit their back room agenda. Pathetic. Worse…unconstitutional.

    • angelsinca

      Welcome to the 21st century. Your paradigms are calibrated for the 1930’s. My 26 yo daughter is loving and perfectly capable as a republican that excludes no one, including gays.

      • RobertCHastings

        Then your daughter is NOT a typical republican, and she just may represent those republicans who will save the GOP from itself.

  • GOP/TP are becoming a cult of liars.

    • Actually they have been a “cult of liars” since Nixon. We all know the lies Nixon told, Then there was Reagan’s lie of “Trickle Down Economics.” then G. Bush’s lie of “no new taxes,” and W Bush’s lies about Iraq…. And those are just the presidents. The Republican congressmen, governors, all the way down to local governments just keep up the tradition of lying.

    • BECOMING a cult of liars?

      • wesley rasmussen

        You, Sir, are a THIEF!! You stole my rejoinder!!! Loved seeing it.

    • The last Republican president to tell America the truth, was Eisenhower. Remember he is the one that warned America about the Military Industrial Complex taking over.

    • Betta

      But YOUR president is the chief of all LIARS. He’s been caught in so many that it is embarrassing.

      • Burzghash

        Oh really? What’s the count at then, since you seem so sure? Go ahead, give us the exact number, since you’re obviously highly educated and informed on the matter. We’ll wait.

        • Betta

          Read my reply to grandma and get a clue.

      • concerned Grandma

        Educate me and name some please. Especially since you claim he is not a mere lier but rather, “the chief of all liers”

        • angelsinca

          What’s a ‘lier’? That was Clinton.

          • angelsinca

            Was it really worth reposting this deleted comment…neocon?

        • Betta

          Didn’t say he was a lier. I said he is a L I A R.

          Okay, grandma. Here goes:

          1. He said no higher taxes on the middle class. He has slammed EVERYBODY with higher taxes while he takes NUMEROUS vacations at the taxpayer’s expense. When was the last time YOU spent MILLIONS of dollars of other people’s money on a vacation, grandma?
          2. He LIED about obamacare and STOLE BILLIONS of dollars from medicare to pay for it.
          3. He LIED about Benghazi – he watched the WHOLE THING via LIVE STREAM and ordered the military to “stand down” – meaning DON’T YOU DARE save the lives of our countrymen.
          4. He LIED about Fast and Furious – LIAR
          6. His birth certificate is a proven FORGERY and FRAUD. LIAR
          7. He LIED about his SS# – It has been proven that this SS# belongs to Harrison J Bounel born in the late 1800s. The SS# Obama is using isn’t his and it doesn’t pass eVerify. This is ID THEFT, a FELONY. He’s a LIAR!

          We could be here all day just scratching the surface of his mountain of LIES. If he grew up in the house I did he wouldn’t have an ass left for all the lies that spill from his mouth like so much VOMIT.

          Anyone supporting this illegal alien from KENYA is an enemy of the United States of America. I’m sure you will be ready to stand with him when all his LIES come crashing down around his ears. Good luck with that.

          In conclusion, he is a low down dirty rotten LIAR!

          • Independent1

            You can really dream up some fantasies can’t you!!! Everything you said is a fairytale!!! Stop listening to the lies and distortions from Faux News.

            If you’re so upset about Benghazi, where were you when all these embassy and consulate attacks happened under Bush and more than 3000 people were killed???????????? (And when you read the list, notice that 3 attacks happened in one consulate and the Bush administration did nothing to stop any of them!!!!!!)

            Bush Years there were 12 attacks with more than 3,300 deaths including more than 3,000 Americans:
            2001 – World Trade Center, New York and Pentagon, DC; 3,000 Americans killed
            . 2002- US Consulate in Karachi Pakistan attacked, 12 killed; 51 injured.
            2003 – International Compound,Saudi Arabia, 17 killed .
            2003 – US Consulate, Karachi, Pakistan,2 killed.
            2004 – US Embassy bombed in Uzbekistan, 2 killed 9 injured.
            2004 – US Consulate Saudi Arabia, 8 killed.
            2006 – US Consulate, Karachi, Pakistan, 4 killed including US diplomat.
            2006 – US Embassy, Syria, 1 killed and 13 wounded.
            2007 – Grenade launched into the US Embassyin Athens.
            2008 – US Embassy, Serbia, attacked by thousands, no one killed.
            2008 – US Consulate, Turkey, 3 killed.
            2008 – US Embassy in Yemen bombed, 13 killed.

          • angelsinca

            Nice list Inedpendent, but you completely miss the point about why Benghazi remains an issue for the right.

          • Independent1

            I’m not missing the point – I’m simply not buying into the lies, distortions and conspiracy theories that the Right has concocted to do nothing but make a mountain out of a molehill just like they’re doing wiht the deficits now that a Republican isn’t in office, and just like they do with virtually anything else they can dream up to distract Americans from the truth: that the GOP is about stealing taxpayers blind with trying to pass tax cuts, start wars and cut every program that benefits those who really need help so they have more money to stash into the pockets of those who already have more money than they should ever need.

          • angelsinca

            If you had asked, I could have easily helped you on why Benghazi is an issue with conservatives. But, you seem to have most of the anti-GOP talking points all rolled up into one neat little disinformed package. Sadly, you missed the Koch Bros & NRA puppetmaster theories. Nice for the jaded view, bad for the truth.

          • Independent1

            I’m really not sure I care what the reason is that Conservatives are so worked up about Benghazi because my basic impression is that, whatever the reason is, it’s based on some conjoured up compiracy theory and is nothing more than the absolute height of hypocracy on their part. But I may be interested in you explaining to me – why I should care. And maybe telling me what, if you can, a conservative has done over the past 30 years that has not had anything but a negative affect on America, its people or the planet? Maybe you could enlighten me on that. Because I have a really hard time of thinking about even one thing good that a Republican has done for America over at least the past 30 years.

          • angelsinca

            The problem with politics is that there are no absolutes. There is no good democratic or republican way of doing things. It’s impossible to attribute any good or bad actions to one party. Everything is a team effort. Everything. They/We are all culpable & capable of doing equal harm and good. The stereotyping I’ve seen toward republicans here is usually inaccurate. The same is true at conservative sites when liberals are mentioned. If people just put aside their notions about each other, we might actually agree on most issues. Nah.

          • RobertCHastings

            How about this anti-GOP talking point? Over the past thirty years, the top 2% have siphoned off over $30T (as in trillion)of middle=class wealth into their own coffers. My source? None other than the CONSERVATIVE Fortune magazine.

          • concerned Grandma

            Thank You, Betta, for correcting my grammar. Now onto the so-called mountain of lies. I really do not know how to have conversation with you about that since I see that you believe the birther nonsense and consider President Obama to be an illegal alien from Kenya. That puts you out there on the fringe with the rest of the conspiracy theorists who have theories but no actual proof. Oh, and bytw, tax law is written by the legislative branch and he is part of the executive branch so really, President Obama cannot personally “slam” anyone with higher taxes. If you have “proof” that he has a fraudulent SS#, have you reported that to the authorities? No? I thought not!
            Enough of this nonsense. I now have a headache.

          • july860

            Me too.

          • edwardw69

            Me three.

          • RobertCHastings

            Thank you, I couldn’t have said it better myself, nor nearly as diplomatically.

          • RobertCHastings

            Unbelievable,but I think Dick Cheney and Karl Rove have found their match! Everything you said is nothing but talking points from Limbaugh, Beck, Fox, Hannity, etc., who are world-renowned liars. I bet you didn’t that, did you. Apparently, there’s a LOT you don’t know.

  • Lovefacts

    Ah, Dominick, the Republicans only want smaller government when it suits them. However, if you’re old or poor or belong to a union or have a vagina, then they want total control because you’re not intelligent enough to understand what’s important.

    • I believe the term for the political ideology they embrace is called totalitarianism, sold to the believers as neo-populism.

      • angelsinca

        Whatever you call the ideaology, it doesn’t involve the ineffective confiscation and redistribution of wealth under the guise of budget balancing. As far as the “new” ideaology emerging from the Democrat party, why do you suppose Pravda this week congratulated Obama and the US on its policies that embrace communism?

    • Independent1

      Just in case no one here noticed: during GWB2’s presidency, the party of ‘smaller government’ added over 2,000,000 people to the size of our government; since then, the party of supposedly ‘bigger government’ has reduced the size of our government by over 600,000 people.

      • angelsinca

        No one noticed because it didn’t happen. You can’t attriibute the growth in local and state gov’t jobs to the president. The total federal workforce under Bush was slightly under 2M (not including USPS) and begin a steep rise in 2009.

        Under Obama, the federal workforce has risen to over 2M (but the state and local gov’t workforces retracted).

        The REAL concern is the continuing steady decline in private sector jobs NOW that began about the 4 month into Obam’s first term.

        source: US Bureau of Labor Stats and Truthful Politics dot com

        • Independent1

          Sorry but you’re wrong: When Bush took office in 2001 there were about 2.2 million nonmilitaryfederal workers; this number rose to 3.4 million by january 2009 and immedicately started down to where in January of 2012 it was at 2.8 million nonmilitary fed workers including the Postal Sevice. And federal workers includes the military which Bush increased in spades in order to fight two wars; which Obama has drastically trimmed back by getting us out of Iraq and winding down the Afghan war.

          And here are just a few more stats for you from Truthful Policitics:

          PLA cited the following statistics:

          “Under the 20 years of Republican administrations before Bush the number of non-defense government employees rose by 310,000.

          Under the 20 years of Democratic administrations, the number of non-defense government employees rose by 59,000.

          Of the 369,000 employees added between 1962 and 2001, 84% were added under Republican administrations and 16% were added under Democratic administrations.”

          • angelsinca

            Thanks for the response…we are now looking at the same data and drawing different conclusions. The growth and retraction of the military jobs under Bush and Obama crossed my mind too, but I reagrded them as cancelling each other to a net zero .

            This data slicing and dicing is all irrelevant anyway since the president shouldn’t have to be benchmarking his own performance against his predecessors. That is, unless he needs a good excuse to explain his own performance and whether or not the people are buying it. Those that voted of him are sold. Those that didn’t aren’t. Nothing’s changed.

            There are plenty of data points to use in order to make Obama appear better. But ironically, the left is only presenting data that paint a bad picture of republicans. The constant reiteration of the same negative points only makes those claims vulnerable to further scrutiny and eventual dismissal as ordinary mudslinging partisanship. thanks again.

          • RobertCHastings

            Yes, Angel, the left is using data that makes Bush look bad. Is there any OTHER data out there, like data that makes Bush look GOOD? I didn’t think so. To paraphrase Sarah Palin, a pig with lipstick is still a pig.

          • angelsinca

            You could use data that make Obama look good…
            …oh, wait.

        • RobertCHastings

          You are reading those statistics with your own interpretatiion. They DON’T require interpretation, just a simple reading will suffice. Since the BUSH Great Recession, which began in 2007(two years before Obama’s first inauguration), millions of workers who lost their jobs have been employed. Millions more jobs are available, except due to the Republican war against public education, we have no people with the technical skills to fill them, and that will get much worse over the next decade. The decline in the workforce after the 4th month into Obama’s first term? Perhaps, but, in case you haven’t been paying attention, jobs have been being added by the private sector for the past 3 1/2 years, plus. This is not my personal assessment of the situation, but that of both private and government sources, INCLUDING the Bureau of Labor Statistics.. For the last few months of W’s administration

  • GOP should be SO proud they are the party of Intolerance/Bigotry/Racism/misogynist and anything else that is now consider on the fringe. Actually glad they are keeping to their small minded, narrow focused policies. Less confusing come election time if they don’t spew rhetoric that doesn’t cull their base. Works for me

  • bandrulz

    Maybe it’s just time for the demise of the GOP since they are really out of step with the progression and evolvement of society. When a party no longer represents what the majority of the electorate wants, then they become no longer relevant. It happened to the Whigs and the Tories and other political parties that no longer represented what the electorate wanted. Seems like it is time for the split of GOP and TEA. The GOP would probably become a little stronger as moderates came back to the party.

    • angelsinca

      After what took 6 million years to achieve through careful natural selection, how is it that people feel they are now special enough to forcible cause ‘evolutionary’ change in less than 1/2 of one generation?

      • RobertCHastings

        Blasphemy! “evolutionary” change? And don’t even try to imply that homosexuality has been around for only 1/2 a generation, and that God was totally against it. There are pasages in your Bible that at least hint at the homosexuality (and bisexuality) of David. People who live in love, of one another and of their God, are, by definition married, in the eyes of God, be they of the same sex or not. However, that is really irrelevent, isn’t it? What is the divorce rate among heterosexual couples? How many acts of heterosexual sex lead to a birth? God says more about hypocrisy in the Bible than He does about homosexuality. Just a few things to ponder while you sit on the toilet doing whatever it is people like you do on the toilet.

        • angelsinca

          “Blasphemy…God was totally against it… pasages in ‘your’ Bible…in the eyes of God…God says…”

          You are now listening to your own little voices, MCH.

          • RobertCHastings

            Cite, chapter and verse. If you are so convinced your “God” is against HIS own creations, then offer up the incontrovertible proof. Regardless of how different ANYONE is from you, you are commanded by your God to do two things 1) not judge him, and 2) love him as your brother.

          • angelsinca

            The Deluge (Genesis 6:5 – 10:32)

          • RobertCHastings

            Did not Noah and his spawn survive, even with the help of God? And what did God say afterward, after the Flood, what did He say about any such future catastrophes He might visit upon mankind? I think He said, basically, there would be no more, which is a direct contradiction of the idea of Revelations.

          • angelsinca

            The covenant God promised through Noah was to never end all flesh with a flood again.

          • RobertCHastings

            So, here we get into the parsing of the Word of God. Let’s just break it down, word by word, and see what God has to say on the subject. However, that is virtually impossible, for just a few very simple reasons.
            1) the Bible was not written by God, but by a few “inspired”individuals, who wrote what they wrote in a context with which we are not familiar, especially since so much of the Old Testament was “written” during a period of diaspora.
            2) the Bible was written in a language which is no longer spoken, and has not been spoken for centuries. If you have ever had the experience of trying to translate just a simple passage from one language into another, you understand the probability that much of the original meaning and intent are NOT in current translations of either the Old Testament OR the New Testament.
            3) as has been learned in recent years by some people much smarter than we are, those who wrote the various books of both the New and the Old Testaments had their own political agendas, and what they had to say about “current” events morelikely than not occurred LONG after the events cited actually took place – they are historical interpretations.
            4) especially with the New Testament, more texts were omitted than included, for, basically, political reasons. There was a convocation of Christian leaders in the 6th century that decided which texts would be included in the New Testament, and which would not. For many that were omitted, we have no idea what they said because they were destroyed, except for those saved at Nag Hamadi and the Dead Sea.
            5) in reference to item 4 above, the text of The Book of Mary is one that was omitted, primarily because men did not want it to be held that Jesus listened to women, which would erode their authority, and thereby change the structure of the Christian church.
            6) while it is considered blasphemous, the movie “Dogma” held that Jesus had children. Some of the texts to which I refer above indicate that is the case. We know that he had at least one sibling. Who can absolutely say that a descendant of either a child or sibling of Jesus’ does not now walk the earth?
            7) The Bible, like the Koran, for me is only appropriate as a guide to my personal conduct, and not an historical document.

          • angelsinca

            What’s your point, Robert?

          • RobertCHastings

            Was my post that confusing? Sorry.

            The Word of God, as presented in the Holy Bible, is not actually the word of God,but an interpretation by fallible humans of what they think God said. As in trying to obtain a good translation from one language to another, the intent of the original speaker/writer may be unattainable due to the lack of direct one-for-one equality between languages. Even from Latin (the basis for the Romance languages) into Spanish, Italian,French, etc., much is always lost through translation. Idioms do not translate well (like snug as a bug in a rug) because much of what idioms say is not available in both languages. Try getting an equivalent of “whatever” in French or Spanish. Such is the case with Aramaic ( language no longer spoken), Ancient Greek, etc. in which early versions of the Old and New Testaments are written, or at least the original texts from which these are derived.

          • angelsinca

            Not confused by tranalation. Just unable to see where you are going, based on where you just were.

          • RobertCHastings

            You may not be confused by the translation. However,my point is that the translation of the Holy Bible that you may accept as the written Word of God is NOT the word of God. Unless you possess a 2800-years old version of the Old Testament and are fluent in the language in which it is written, what you are holding in your hand is, effectively, gibberish.

          • angelsinca

            “…the written Word of God is NOT the word of God”

            This was already established. But to write off the present translation of the Bible as ‘gibberish’ is disrepectful and foolhardy.

          • RobertCHastings

            Take any phrase you can think of in English that you see on a regular basis, and translate it into any language you choose. The more that commonly occuring phrase is based upon idiom, the more likely it is that phrase will NOT translate adequately. If you speak another language well enough to read and comprehend poetry in that language, you understand that ANY translation, even by the best, loses out, either in idiom, tone, or meter. Poetry is based upon the idea of reducing common thoughts into their common denominators, using the fewest words possible to express an otherwise complex thought. So it is with the Holy Bible. Not only is the literal translation impossible, it frequently is not even attempted, making some passages in our New Testament unrecognizable to those who may have originally written.it.

          • angelsinca

            So, you wish to discount the entire bible based on what you describe as an impossible translation. I share the same silly notion as the billions of others that are capable of accepting the present translations without debate. thanks

          • RobertCHastings

            Good for you, I hope it proves to your benefit. However, once again you have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion. I do not discount the entire Bible. It is an excellent guide, as it was intended, to direct us through our daily lives. It is, however, a TERRIBLE guide to direct our political decisions, one of the basic reasons for the “religious freedom” clause in the First Amendment and its consequent separation of church and state.

          • angelsinca

            Instead of conceding your erroneous assertion that Revelations contradicts what you ‘thought’ God promised to Noah, you counter with an argument that His word isn’t worth measuring anyway since the writings of the Bible are jujst Man’s writings. Well, of course. God is a metaphor.

          • RobertCHastings

            Oh, thank you for clearing that up. I thought God was an actual entity, that existed throughout His creation. Thank you for making your concept of God more understandable.

          • angelsinca

            Think what you want about God. Attempting to debunk His existence, even as a metaphoir, is rather annoying and pointless.

          • RobertCHastings

            What is annoying is that you are so prone to interpreting rather than reading. I have in no, shape, manner or form called into question the existence of God. I KNOW he exists , from personal experience. What I DO question, however, is the validity of claiming the Holy Bible is the literal word of God, especially in either the King James Version or The New World Testament.

      • RobertCHastings

        Evolutionary change is quite a concept. How does marriage-equality achieve that, especially since same-sex marriage has no procreative function? I must assume that you are referring to evolution of the institution of marriage. Same-sex marriage does not weaken the institution of marriage, but strengthens it, simply because same sex couples must come out into the open and openly declare their orientation AND there love for one another. The divorce rate among heterosexual couples is much greater than the separation rate among same-sex couples, and marriage only serves to strengthen that bond of mutual respect and love.

        • angelsinca

          According to my gay friends, they don’t care about the ceremony aspect of marriage. They just (rightfully) expect the same spousal considerations for tax and visitation and health/dental benefits.

          • RobertCHastings

            Well, your gay friends seem to pretty much in line with what most gays around the country feel. They don’t necessarily want a big fancy ceremony, just the legal recognition of their marriage contract.

          • angelsinca

            It’s not the marriage contract they want. It’s the entitlements. My friends are honest.

          • RobertCHastings

            Without the contract, they will not get the benefits. That’s what the whole discussion is about, isn’t it?

          • angelsinca

            That’s the point, Robert. The ‘institution of marrriage’ is not the goal. It’s only the BENEFITS that are wanted. This is why, in the name of fairness, marriage should NOT be changed to accomodate LGBT. It’s the BENEFITS that need to change so that they are available to everyone under law, without having to be mnarried fo enjoy the offerings.

          • RobertCHastings

            Then why have DOMA that defines marriage(or legally binding contractual union) in such a way as to EXCLUDE certain classes from the benefits of marriage? Why not make marriage the right of ALL people who are willing to accept the responsibility of such a union. Your friends may CLAIM all they want is the benefits, but they also want the acceptability and respectability (ie.-recognition) of the legally binding contract of marriage. By refusing them that, they are STILL denied acceptance, and they will REMAIN second class citizens.
            Until blacks were allowed ALL the rights and equality under the law that whites had, THEY were still second-class citizens. (All too many STILL are seen as second-class). Rights and equality do not come until ALL are recognized as equal, under the law.

  • elw

    The GOP sold their soul to the Tea Party and they will eventually pay for such a poor
    decision, by becoming irrelevant. The extreme right will never give up their core beliefs and what they call their values. In addition, they will never accept that the majority of the Nation’s citizens are more comfortable with equality for all regardless of color, race, gender, sexually orientation and religion. They may be slowing us down right now, but that will not last. As the last few elections have shown the voters have gotten tired of their games.

    • Betta

      You think folks should have certain “rights” based on how they like to have sex? Utterly ridiculous. Whether you like taking it up the wazoo or munching carpet…you should have special rights for that?

      You can’t live the homosexual lifestyle and want to emulate the heterosexual lifestyle too. Want marriage and to raise kids? Marry someone of the opposite sex and have at it.

      • elw

        You have the right to think how you want to. You do not have the right to tell me or anyone else how or how not they should live. Ultimately it will be the laws of the United States that decide if people of the same sex should marry, we already know they can have children. Many of them do.

        • Betta

          And YOU don’t have the right to change what marriage is, always has been and always will be – between a man and woman. I see you played hooky or was sleep during science class. Two people of the same sex DO NOT procreate together. It must be done the old fashioned way and I don’t mean test tubes and petri dishes.

          • elw

            Your wrong, this Country is ruled by the majority and if that majority saids they think it is OK for same-sex couples to marry, that will be the rule – whether you approve or not. Your last remark was strange since many heterosexual couple have no choice but to leave the old fashion way behind and use test tubes and petri dishes in order to have children. So I guess you can say that there are many opposite sex couples who cannot procreate together – should you denine them the right to marry? What about opposite-sex couples that choose not to have children, can they marry?

          • RobertCHastings

            Procreation is NOT the purpose of marriage. It is, simply, the purpose of heterosexual intercourse.

      • Burzghash

        What’s laughable is you still think affording them the same equality is giving them ‘special rights’. Please, keep spouting delusional nonsense. It’s working so great for you and your party.

        • Betta

          Your argument is WEAK and full of holes. What’s delusional is YOUR idea of marriage.

      • RobertCHastings

        Marriage is a civil contract and as such is sanctioned by the governments of the states. Article IV of the Constitution states that contracts that are recognized in one state must be honored in the several states, meaning that same-sex marriages sanctified in ONE state MUST be honored in the other states. Marriage has little or nothing to do with religion and should thus not be bound by archaic misunderstandings of God’s Law.

        • Betta

          Be careful that you do not blaspheme. God has already told you what marriage IS and who can participate in it.

          • RobertCHastings

            Please, don’t insult me with your stupidity. Blasphemy is for those who deny and reject God’s unconditional and universal love. God has NOT toldME what HIS definition of marriage is, nor is it found anywhere in the WORD of GOD, which the Bible definitely is not. Maybe you need to read a little history on the Bible, and who wrote it, and it wasn’t “inspired” priests, rabbis or scribes. Marriage is a civil contract, consecrated in the eyes of God, but not necessarily performed in His House or by His earthly representative. It is recognized in law as a contract, and, as such, is to be honored among the various states, as a legal contract binding between the two parties.

  • Question: how can Republican/Tea Bag legislators be anti-government when they are in the government? I could never understand that. Doesn’t it sound a bit treasonous for someone to be against government, campaign for a political seat, be elected to the government, then once inside the government, work to destroy it? The French calls that agents provocatuers; the military calls it sabotage. Republican?Tea Bags call for “smaller government”, “keep the government out of our business!” but they ARE government. They legislate laws based upon a government document which is the Constitution, misinterpret the Constitution, and work to revise it to fit their agenda. That sounds like agents provocatuers infiltrating a government to sabotage it. . . I don’t know. Maybe its just me.

    • plc97477

      II don’t think they actively destroy it, just use it to get as much money as they can from the system. The call for small government is just to get idiots to vote for them.

  • Betta

    “You stick to the easy stuff — like hating gays.”

    You are full of it. Gays do such a good job of hating themselves then projecting their self hatred on to others who couldn’t care less what you do in private with another consenting adult. Gays are their own worst enemies. Nobody hates you. We just don’t like it when you push your perversion in our faces and wanting to indoctrinate our children into believing this against nature behavior is natural.

  • howa4x

    The party of hypocrisy is what the platform of the GOP/Tealiban. they only support the rights of people that think exactly like them, white right wing Christians, preferably male. That want religion to guide American even though it is contrary to the constitution. Remember when the Tealiban carried them around like Mao’s little red book? Too bad most of them didn’t understand the part about separation of church and state. They want a Caliphate of religious dogma and rules. This is why they can’t win a national election. The answer to all this is to double down on what lost the election for you. This is self righteous delusion, just like climate change is God’s will, or how can we bring on the rapture. Their chances of appealing to the younger cohort are fading away. Ask any of them, if you can bear to talk to them, to give you one constitutional reason why same sex marriage shouldn’t happen and they will always site a religious one. That is the dilemma of the party, and why eventually it will be a regional entity. The real break my come when moderates in the GOP defect because they can’t deal with the crazies anymore.

  • angelsinca

    It’s amusing how Democrats feel they are the ones to cause change to the Republican party. Maybe Democrats need to keep a careful eye on their own party that is quickly becoming a rudderless party driven by radicals whose sole strategy is to attack the conservative. We like our traditions, our principles and our party despite attempts to convince us otherwise. The more you try to change us into something we don’t want to be, the more determined we become to defend our values. In case you haven’t noticed, our base isn’t getting any smaller and your president has used up most of his political capital.