“Support the Troops”…but only the straight ones. :mad:
I want people to remember this shit when they do their “patriotic support the troops flag waving routine”.
What a bunch of scumbags.
I would LOVE to see a Gunny Sgt or Sgt Major grab a microphone at one of those "functions’ tell Santorum all about himself and then go Stone Cold Steve Austin all over his sorry ass.
I agree that there are homophobes in the GOP, and I condemn their hateful rhetoric and actions (as seen here)-but this does not represent the views of all the Republican Party.
It might not represent the views of a few in the party but it does indeed represent the views of the party. Given the opportunity to stand on the side of that American solder everyone on that stage declined. Those are the people your party has chosen to lead them. You can prove me wrong when your party rejects the people on that stage and chooses another.
The question was asked to a single candidate, who gave a singular opinion on the subject. None of the other candidates were involved, as far as I know.
Good for you for not being in this group of homophobes.
Do you think that most Republican politicians would be in favor of anti-gay legislation? Would most folks who identify as Republicans be in favor of extending all rights to gays, including the right to adopt or marry?
What is meant by “anti-gay legislation”? But a no for the second question.
Legislation written with the intent to have a disproportionate negative effect on homosexuals.
Such as DADT?
Yeah, a badge which the Democrats must wear in shame.
Just out of curiosity, do you know what the intent of DADT was? It was actually a liberalization of the then-current policy, which was to exclude gays from serving altogether.
So it seems that DADT, when it was written, might actually fail the “written with the intent to have a negative disproportionate effect on gays” criteria.
I would say an example would be legislation that would prevent someone from not renting a house to a person because they were gay, or legislation that would prevent a restaurant from kicking someone out just because they are gay. Basically recognizing that being gay should not be a basis of discrimination.
Would most Republican politicians sponsor or support legislation like that?
At least not officially. The 2008 Party Platform has a statement strongly condemning gay marriage and pooh-poohing the repeal of DoMA, and it fails to mention gays anywhere in its statement of tolerance and individual rights, so while their policy may not be actively homophobic they’re not exactly falling over themselves to combat homophobia.
Also, their stance on equality and religious tolerance seems to directly contradict their stance on DoMA / gay marriage, suggesting that at best homophobia is a blind spot, something the party is not willing to condemn.
I don’t think you’ll find a single thing that unites every single Republican voter, and I know plenty of Republicans who aren’t homophobic, but homophobia is pretty prevalent at all levels of the party. I hate the Democrats = good / Republican = evil meme, but it’s pretty clear that mainstream Republican values are closer to homophobia than not.
My impression as well is that it was a compromise between those who wanted gays to be able to serve, and those who wanted no gays in the military at all. (No points for guessing which party was on which side.) Perhaps not a compromise that made everyone happy but…
Clearly the existence of GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans shows that not all Republicans are homophobes. A pity that the ones that are front and center, who continue to happily pander to the Christian Right, either are homophobes or (ironically) are happy to hop into bed with them.
I know, it has been noted before
I’m not sure. Wasn’t such a bill up before Congress not too long ago?
You’re not sure if Republicans would sponsor or support a bill to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?
You might want to look into that. Just FYI, the majority of the party does not share your tolerant outlook.
At the risk of excluding the middle, Santorum is either a liar or an ignorant idiot.*
He claimed that in the military, previously, “sex was not an issue,” ignoring the explicit regulations that prohibited any member of the service from engaging in any homosexual behavior, even off base or on leave while having no similar prohibition regarding heterosexual behavior. His comment is false regardless whether it was intended to indicate the period before or the period during DADT.
(And I am sure that black people throughout the military and women in the military would agree with him that we should not engage in “social experiments” (such as racial integration or permitting women to serve in ships or combat theaters) regarding the military.)
** (I fully recognize that the most likely situation is that both conditions are true.)*
But the home of the vast majority is the Republican party. Not just jerks but haters of people of color and gays. You will notice none of the candidates were offended . None of them had a thing to say in any of 3 embarrassing occasions. That is because in the repub party, it is accepted. No big deal at all.