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.
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.
Hmmm, so there should be a big change the next time a Republican president is assassinated? 
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.
I’m not seeing where they are saying it should be illegal.
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.
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.
Post 52, John Mace, seems to deal with that, then.
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.
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.
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.
Can you hand wave the Catholic PAC’s own words?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
They just tell voters that if they use it they’ll go to hell forever. But illegal, oh deary me, how absurd that is!