Thursday, April 17, 2008

The Death of the GOP

This article was taken from:
My comments follow.

SAN DIEGO (AP) - California's governor is ready to fight an initiative to change the state's Constitution to ban same-sex marriage if it qualifies for the November ballot.
Arnold Schwarzenegger says he will "always be there to fight against that." He has vetoed bills that would allow gay marriage but says he's against the kind of amendments that are being proposed.
Two competing groups are offering different initiatives, one that would limit marriage to heterosexuals, and one that would revoke the spousal rights and tax benefits now extended to same-sex couples under state laws.
Schwarzenegger's comments came at the annual convention of the Log Cabin Republicans, the country's largest gay Republican group.

Am I the only one who is disillusioned with our elected officials and the Republican party? Arnold is another in the long list of liars and neo-cons who will spell certain doom not only for the GOP but ultimately this nation. The Republican Party was the last vestige of moral decency. Once this party fails where should a voter turn?
The problem started shortly after the Reagan Revolution and the Clinton years. People were flocking to the Republican Party after the wave of patriotism President Reagan stirred up followed by the scandal ridden years of the Clinton era. People did all they could to distance themselves from being Democrat. That's where the problem started. The Republican Party was so enamored with the possibility of gaining control of the political landscape of America that they swung the gates wide open and let anyone in who said I am now a Republican. They did not police this party.
Groups such as the Log Cabin Republicans should never of been allowed entry into the party of family values. People like Ruddy Giuliani should never of been allowed to switch. Candidates like Mitt Romney should never been allowed to run for president as a Republican. The Democrats, though they deny it, have a litmus test for their party. That litmus test includes whether you believe in homosexual rights, abortion, and socialized everything. Why didn't the Republican Party enforce their beliefs and have a similar test? As it stands now is there much of a difference if any amongst the parties?
We have been fooled yet again! Arnold is a liar. Remember while campaigning for Pres. Bush in '04 Arnold was yelling "NO girly men"! This man needs to be impeached and sent back to his homeland. Aren't you tired of being lied to?
Maybe its time for another split as what happened in 1971 when the Barry Goldwater faction of the Republican Party started the Libertarian Party, though Goldwater as well as many Libertarians are to wide open with their freedom. If there is another split I have the new name picked out all ready. It would be called the Common Sense Party. If you believe that a man being with another man is normal or 2 women being together than you fail to have common sense. That's where my litmus test would start for the new party. You fail that first question you can't join. That to me is common sense.

Everyone is entitled to certain unalienable rights but when your actions cross moral boundaries and the laws of nature and you expect the public to accept your behavior that's where those rights end. Instead of going further with this thought or rewriting what has already been said I have enclosed a statement from Mike Huckabee which I believe sums this up exactly.

State governments have no business regulating the private sexual conduct of consenting adults but do have a role in defining marriage. Let me be very clear - what people do in the privacy of their own lives as adults is their business, don’t want to know; don’t need to know.
If they bring it into the public square and ask me as a taxpayer to support it or to endorse it, then it becomes a matter of public discussion and, I think, public discourse.
Striking laws that prohibited private behavior among adults probably was appropriate because that’s not something that would be easy or even possible to regulate. Not sure that government ought to be regulating that. If, however, advocates asked states to endorse the concept of same-sex unions, we can say no to that. If you ask for survivor benefits to be paid to a same-sex survivor, I think we have a right to say no to that.
Gov. Mike Huckabee

No comments: