# GOP RIP: the price of progress? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 20, 2012, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-rip-the-price-of-progress/613419 "2012-02-20T14:22:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-rip-the-price-of-progress/613419/61 "2012-02-20T20:25:59Z")
As for the OP, I suspect the Republican party will be forced to become less socially conservative in a lot of areas. My kids generation, who grew up with _Will and Grace_ are having a hard time seeing what the controversy about SSM is about. Eventually younger Republicans will quietly drop opposition to SSM, or else it will go away. As far as economic policy, Republicans are quite skilled in developing plausible analogies which appeal to the hordes who don’t understand economics. An example is the “you can’t run a deficit in your household, why should the government?” This stuff is not going away until we have a much better educated populace - not likely. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-rip-the-price-of-progress/613419/62 "2012-02-20T20:33:15Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > The attack on Planned Parenthood was also recent, and the vast majority of their services are reproductive health and family planning. Yup. And, by and large, the GOP will lose that fight too. Komen already took a big blow for taking on PP. Some states will probably defund, and I know PP is a popular boogeyman in the GOP primary, but I doubt you will see defunding PP as a sound bite from the GOP candidate (unless they’re dumber than I think). > [@](#): > > Just because they have to temper their words with the electorate is not an indication that their stance has changed. > > If the flood of proposed legislation stops or even slows to a trickle I’ll concede they have changed, but at this point in time they will do so in any fashion and matter possible. But it has changed in action as well as words. I guess if you don’t see a difference between trying to defund high schools that provide Plan B and trying to outlaw all contraception then I don’t know what to tell you. They are on a completely different scale and bring completely different arguments (the rights of minors to have access to contraception, for one). I think you would find polling on the two issues to be radically different. > [@](#): > > They could have just forced parental notification if that was their primary concern, it is the birth control that was their target. It was this particular type of birth control. And I agree it’s bad law (hell, it’s sponsored by Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann…). But it’s still not really an effective counterpoint to the notion that the GOP has changed it’s stance wrt contraception in the last few decades. And they will continue to do so (as will the Democrats) as public opinion changes. That’s what political parties _do_. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-rip-the-price-of-progress/613419/63 "2012-02-20T20:37:54Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Yup. And, by and large, the GOP will lose that fight too. Komen already took a big blow for taking on PP. Some states will probably defund, and I know PP is a popular boogeyman in the GOP primary, but I doubt you will see defunding PP as a sound bite from the GOP candidate (unless they’re dumber than I think). > But it has changed in action as well as words. I guess if you don’t see a difference between trying to defund high schools that provide Plan B and trying to outlaw all contraception then I don’t know what to tell you. They are on a completely different scale and bring completely different arguments (the rights of minors to have access to contraception, for one). I think you would find polling on the two issues to be radically different. > It was this particular type of birth control. And I agree it’s bad law (hell, it’s sponsored by Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann…). But it’s still not really an effective counterpoint to the notion that the GOP has changed it’s stance wrt contraception in the last few decades. > > And they will continue to do so (as will the Democrats) as public opinion changes. That’s what political parties _do_. I have not argued that they will not need to change in order to maintain political relevance, I was arguing that the party at this point in time has not changed. They will need to moderate their stance in the future but I think they will need to wait for their current core voter block and leadership to die off before doing so. Or find a way to attract the swing voter, something the current leadership of the party seems to have little interest in. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-rip-the-price-of-progress/613419/64 "2012-02-20T20:41:18Z")
> [@Slithy\_Tove](#): > > Historicaly, the GOP has often had to deal with some major factional upeavals. In the 1880’s, civil service reform split it between the Stalwart and the Mugwumps. When the Stalwart Chester Arthur became president over the dead body of reformist Garfield, the inevitable conspiracy theories compelled reform none the less. > > Anteceding the prospect of the GOP’s tacit approval of abortion, UHC, etc. was the policy of McKinley to always support business interests over labor and consumers. But when Teddy Roosevelt took office, he appropriated many of William Jennings Bryan’s initiatives to benefit the working class; the Square Deal, Full Lunch Pail, food and drug purity, etc. It simply had to be done or the alternative would have been strikes, rioting and assassination, or even worse: the Demorcrats in office. Hmmm, so there should be a big change the next time a Republican president is assassinated? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-rip-the-price-of-progress/613419/65 "2012-02-20T20:47:54Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, they can advocate political positions. They cannot endorse candidates directly. At least they are not supposed to - sometimes they come awfully close, on both sides of the aisle. Thanks for the clarification. But I think—again not sure—that they can’t engage in other behavior, too. The IRS website is a bit vague on the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-rip-the-price-of-progress/613419/66 "2012-02-20T21:26:27Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Thanks for the clarification. But I think—again not sure—that they can’t engage in other behavior, too. The IRS website is a bit vague on the issue. You are correct that the prohibition on political activity is broader than \*\*Shodan \*\*suggests. Churches cannot engage in lobbying, even on issues, if it forms a “substantial part” of their activities. Nor can churches engage in issue lobbying that amounts to candidate endorsement. Those are the existing laws, at least. Who knows if they are constitutional in a post-Citizens United world. And, of course, any serious enforcement would be a political minefield, so I think churches don’t worry about it too much. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-rip-the-price-of-progress/613419/67 "2012-02-20T21:32:28Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Why would the need to issue a statement when their stance has never changed? > > [http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control](http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control) I’m not seeing where they are saying it should be illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-rip-the-price-of-progress/613419/68 "2012-02-20T21:35:04Z")
Is there some doctrine that explains which grave sins the Church seeks to outlaw and those which they prefer remain legal? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-rip-the-price-of-progress/613419/69 "2012-02-20T21:43:02Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Is there some doctrine that explains which grave sins the Church seeks to outlaw and those which they prefer remain legal? I don’t know, but I think it’s what we used to call [Mortal Sins.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin) > [@](#): > > This would also include worshiping other gods, not respecting the Sabbath, covetous behaviour; and the Catechism quotes the Biblical prohibition against blasphemy.[3] The Church itself does not provide a precise list of sins, subdivided into the mortal and venial categories. However, many sins are described as “grave sins” or “grave offenses” in the Catechism such as extramarital sex,[4] divorce[5] and masturbation.[6] I haven’t seen the RCC call for any of those things to be made illegal. Catholics, for instance, would not recognize a civil ceremony as being marriage. It’s a sacrament, and must be performed by a priest. And if you get divorced in a civil action, you are still married in the eyes of the Church. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-rip-the-price-of-progress/613419/70 "2012-02-20T21:48:29Z")
Post 52, **John Mace** , seems to deal with that, then. ---
**Author:** ![KneeSid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dec6dc/32.png) [@KneeSid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneeSid)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-rip-the-price-of-progress/613419/71 "2012-02-20T21:48:38Z")
Republicans were dead after Watergate. Ah no. Nixon was dead after losing to Kennedy? A no A black man can’t win the presidency…Ah no… and so forth. Voter habits change to fast to predict. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-rip-the-price-of-progress/613419/72 "2012-02-20T21:48:42Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Yup. And, by and large, the GOP will lose that fight too. Komen already took a big blow for taking on PP. Some states will probably defund, and I know PP is a popular boogeyman in the GOP primary, but I doubt you will see defunding PP as a sound bite from the GOP candidate (unless they’re dumber than I think). > But it has changed in action as well as words. I guess if you don’t see a difference between trying to defund high schools that provide Plan B and trying to outlaw all contraception then I don’t know what to tell you. They are on a completely different scale and bring completely different arguments (the rights of minors to have access to contraception, for one). I think you would find polling on the two issues to be radically different. > It was this particular type of birth control. And I agree it’s bad law (hell, it’s sponsored by Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann…). But it’s still not really an effective counterpoint to the notion that the GOP has changed it’s stance wrt contraception in the last few decades. > > And they will continue to do so (as will the Democrats) as public opinion changes. That’s what political parties _do_. It is not sound bites, they submitted legislation to defund PP, they just couldn’t pass it. They have also not submitted legislation to directly outlaw abortion, you may want to go look at RVW again, note how much of it depends on the case, decided just a year earlier, that said non-married couples could use contraception. It was a CRIMINAL offense to do so in several states. Please show me any cite where the GOP recognizes the rights of unmarried consenting adults to engage in sexual relations let alone use contraception. If you go look at the Lawrence v. Texas amici curiae It was only the Log Cabin republicans and the more “personal rights” types like Al Simpson who filed in favor of the rights of adults. I am heartened to see Republicans like Dick Cheney and Al Simpson come out in support of Gays and non-Christians but they could never have done so at the national level in the GOP. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-rip-the-price-of-progress/613419/73 "2012-02-20T21:59:07Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I don’t know, but I think it’s what we used to call [Mortal Sins.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin) > > I haven’t seen the RCC call for any of those things to be made illegal. Catholics, for instance, would not recognize a civil ceremony as being marriage. It’s a sacrament, and must be performed by a priest. And if you get divorced in a civil action, you are still married in the eyes of the Church. Go read the Popes 1968 statement again, and that link. If you have access to a good law library go look at the Briefs they submitted in relation to the SCOTUS cases I already cited. The onus is on you, provide a cite where the church claims that individuals have a right to the use of contraception. I have linked to official statements of doctrine, you have provided nothing except for unsubstantiated denial. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-rip-the-price-of-progress/613419/74 "2012-02-20T22:13:56Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m not seeing where they are saying it should be illegal. Can you hand wave the Catholic PAC’s own words? [http://www.catholicadvocate.com/about/](http://www.catholicadvocate.com/about/) > [@](#): > > “It is also the duty of the laity to participate actively in political life, in a manner coherent with the teaching of the Church, bringing their well- founded reasoning and great ideals into the democratic debate, and into the search for a broad consensus among everyone who cares about the defense of life and freedom, the protection of truth and the good of the family, solidarity with the needy, and the vital search for the common good.” > > Pope Benedict XVI to the Pontifical Council of the Laity during the “Witnesses to Christ in the political community” gathering – May 21, 2010 ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-rip-the-price-of-progress/613419/75 "2012-02-20T22:23:41Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > Not to declare the Republican Party dead prematurely… No. You’ll always have groups of politicians seeking power. One bunch will call themselves Republicans, the other Democrats. What each stands for will be fluid. Both will remain less interested in policies than power. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-rip-the-price-of-progress/613419/76 "2012-02-20T22:24:34Z")
The bishop in Minnesota has ordered every Catholic church in the state to form a committee for lobbying against marriage equality. The IRS regulations are a joke. Obama would never let them target a mainstream religion for breaking the law, too much ammo for Senator Byproduct. Mormons and Catholics are literally getting instructions from the pulpit on how to vote, and if you think the law is going to stop it you’re completely naive about political reality. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-rip-the-price-of-progress/613419/77 "2012-02-20T22:33:53Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Go read the Popes 1968 statement again, and that link. > > If you have access to a good law library go look at the Briefs they submitted in relation to the SCOTUS cases I already cited. > > The onus is on you, provide a cite where the church claims that individuals have a right to the use of contraception. > > I have linked to official statements of doctrine, you have provided nothing except for unsubstantiated denial. No. The onus is on you to provide a cite that RCC advocates making birth control illegal in the US. And Catholic Advocate is not the RCC, but here’s what their web cite says about contraception: > [@](#): > > Population policy must not include abortion and sterilization as methods of slowing population growth. > The use of contraception in population policy undermines marriage and ignores the moral issues of promiscuity and disease. > Catholic institutions should not be required to support contraception or abortion through mandated insurance coverage. Nothing about making contraception illegal. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-rip-the-price-of-progress/613419/78 "2012-02-20T22:47:46Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No. The onus is on you to provide a cite that RCC advocates making birth control illegal in the US. And Catholic Advocate is not the RCC, but here’s what their web cite says about contraception: > Nothing about making contraception illegal. Note that part about making law and doctrine match, they are smart enough to temper their speach. Here is the amacus they filed in John G. Lawrence, et al. v. Texas [http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme\_court/briefs/02-102/02-102.mer.ami.clji.pdf](http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-102/02-102.mer.ami.clji.pdf) > [@](#): > > A broadly-defined new fundamental right for > consenting adults to engage in any and all sexual activities, > would have profound legal implications for every law > touching upon sexual relationships. Despite Petitioners’ > assurances to the contrary, > 7 > there is no principled means of > drawing the line between homosexual sodomy and adultery, > polygamy, or incest, as long as the participants are > consenting adults. Other sexual relationships outside > marriage have no better historical pedigree than homosexual > sodomy. See generally Morris Ploscowe, Sex and the Law > 142 (1951); John D’Emilio & Estelle B. Freedman, Intimate > Matters: A History of Sexuality in America 22 (1988). Even > swinging clubs or ménage a trois would be a part of this new > fundamental right, since such practices are just one more > permutation of the right to intimate association. You have nothing on your side to even suggest they think there should be a right for a non-catholic to use birth control. Here is prove they think that swinging clubs or ménage a trois should be illegal. the have also recently stated that it is wrong for women beyond child bearing aged to have sex. [http://carnalnation.com/content/5241/3/catholic-church-says-elderly-should-not-be-sexual](http://carnalnation.com/content/5241/3/catholic-church-says-elderly-should-not-be-sexual) Also part of their argument against gay marriage is that it is sinful. It is quite obvious their leaders have called upon the membership to help push laws constant with church doctrine, church doctrine is that no contraception is acceptable. The fact that they know they would need to have a constitutional amendment to do so would make it a silly battle to fight, but there is NO evidence to show they would not do so if they could get it to pass. I see no inconsistency in their views they have not changed, I only see a denial with no evidence from your side. I will quit contributing to thread drift unless you come back with any serious evidence that they do not want a national law banning contraception. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-rip-the-price-of-progress/613419/79 "2012-02-20T22:56:24Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Note that part about making law and doctrine match, they are smart enough to temper their speach. > > Here is the amacus they filed in John G. Lawrence, et al. v. Texas > [http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme\_court/briefs/02-102/02-102.mer.ami.clji.pdf](http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-102/02-102.mer.ami.clji.pdf) > > You have nothing on your side to even suggest they think there should be a right for a non-catholic to use birth control. > > Here is prove they think that swinging clubs or ménage a trois should be illegal. > > the have also recently stated that it is wrong for women beyond child bearing aged to have sex. > > [http://carnalnation.com/content/5241/3/catholic-church-says-elderly-should-not-be-sexual](http://carnalnation.com/content/5241/3/catholic-church-says-elderly-should-not-be-sexual) > > Also part of their argument against gay marriage is that it is sinful. > > It is quite obvious their leaders have called upon the membership to help push laws constant with church doctrine, church doctrine is that no contraception is acceptable. > > The fact that they know they would need to have a constitutional amendment to do so would make it a silly battle to fight, but there is NO evidence to show they would not do so if they could get it to pass. > > I see no inconsistency in their views they have not changed, I only see a denial with no evidence from your side. > > I will quit contributing to thread drift unless you come back with any serious evidence that they do not want a national law banning contraception. I couldn’t find the words “birth control” or “contraception” in your quote. Can you requote and underline it for us? That is the topic of discussion. And your link to carnalnation with it’s silly interpretation of what that Priest said just shows that you are grasping for straws and are just throwing anything up against the wall and hoping that something will stick. Catholics do no think old, married couples should not have sex. Your cite just made that up. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-rip-the-price-of-progress/613419/80 "2012-02-20T22:57:46Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Nothing about making contraception illegal. They just tell voters that if they use it they’ll go to hell forever. But illegal, oh deary me, how absurd that is! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-rip-the-price-of-progress/613419.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-rip-the-price-of-progress/613419.md?page=5)