We can understand the directions of groups by looking at their elected leaders. Take the US House for instance: just today those representing the GOP in the US House voted overwhelmingly against a bill protecting same-sex marriage at the federal level. Today!
I mean, a party platform is exactly a document declaring the direction of a group of people. They get together and vote on it. Why can't we take that to be a pretty clear expression of their values and beliefs?
How much clearer can this get? The Supreme court gutted the constitutional foundation of Obergefell. One of the Justices is begging for a challenge to the decision. A US Senator concurs. The former VP agrees. State parties agree and make it an official plank of their party's platform. And now House Republicans have shown where they stand. What more proof do you need?
I guess another way to ask this question would be, what would you need to see before you would agree that the Republican party is coming after gay marriage next? How much more explicit do they need to be about it?
And yes, the language used by the Texas GOP does take the debate back decades. Homosexuality is not a “choice”, and definitely not merely a “lifestyle”. I thought that debate had been settled, but I guess gay conversion therapy is back on the menu. And as a matter of fact, homosexuals are normal, and have been an integral part of human societies as long as they have existed, including American society since before it was founded. That Americans had not accepted them as such doesn’t change that homosexuality is normal.
I mean, a party platform is exactly a document declaring the direction of a group of people. They get together and vote on it. Why can't we take that to be a pretty clear expression of their values and beliefs?
How much clearer can this get? The Supreme court gutted the constitutional foundation of Obergefell. One of the Justices is begging for a challenge to the decision. A US Senator concurs. The former VP agrees. State parties agree and make it an official plank of their party's platform. And now House Republicans have shown where they stand. What more proof do you need?
I guess another way to ask this question would be, what would you need to see before you would agree that the Republican party is coming after gay marriage next? How much more explicit do they need to be about it?
And yes, the language used by the Texas GOP does take the debate back decades. Homosexuality is not a “choice”, and definitely not merely a “lifestyle”. I thought that debate had been settled, but I guess gay conversion therapy is back on the menu. And as a matter of fact, homosexuals are normal, and have been an integral part of human societies as long as they have existed, including American society since before it was founded. That Americans had not accepted them as such doesn’t change that homosexuality is normal.