RNC Wants GOP to Stop Pissing Off Gays, Immigrants, Young People

Elephants can be cuddly, you know!GOP.comThe Republican National Committee has a new report out today, the findings of the party’s Growth and Opportunity Project. The project was a byproduct of Mitt Romney’s failure at the polls and featured surveys, focus groups and more than 800 conference calls! (I’m not being sarcastic about the conference calls – they’re the ones who highlight it in the report.)

NBC News described the report as “audacious” in its efforts to revitalize the party. I wouldn’t exactly go that far, though the report is refreshingly blunt about how the party is viewed by non-members:

Public perception of the Party is at record lows. Young voters are increasingly rolling their eyes at what the Party represents, and many minorities wrongly think that Republicans do not like them or want them in the country. When someone rolls their eyes at us, they are not likely to open their ears to us.

What is new is that the report acknowledges that the party’s position and attitudes toward gays is losing young people.  Preserving “traditional marriage” was the first item in the “American Values” section of the Republican Party’s 2012 platform. Efforts to amend the platform to show support for civil unions failed. From the report:

For the GOP to appeal to younger voters, we do not have to agree on every issue, but we do need to make sure young people do not see the Party as totally intolerant of alternative points of view. Already, there is a generational difference within the conservative movement about issues involving the treatment and the rights of gays — and for many younger voters, these issues are a gateway into whether the Party is a place they want to be.

The generational divide was on full display at CPAC last week. Note, though, how the report doesn’t actually call for the party to change its position. Just being more “tolerant” of other views doesn’t really seem like it’s going to get the party much of anywhere with young voters. If the party’s platform is still hostile to these issues, then that’s exactly what people will focus on.

As for the sections on immigration and women: It seems like even the RNC has forgotten its own 2012 convention. Much of the advice here to be more inclusive of minorities and women was on full display at the convention, for all the good it did them. The report acknowledges that the party must tackle its reputation with ethnic minorities and “champion comprehensive immigration reform,” but this is not a policy paper and the most important question – What that immigration reform should look like – goes unanswered.

This isn’t to downplay the report. That this kind of messaging is coming directly from the Republican National Committee is important. Fundamentally, though, the only component of the report that actually feels new is its ability to mention the existence of gays without immediately retreating into “traditional marriage” talk.

Below, read the full report:

Growth Opportunity Project by Republican National Committee

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    In the GOP, if nobody is offended, then everybody will be.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    In the GOP, nobody can hear you scream.

  • ||

    John, however, wants to continue pissing them off because they are icky, icky, icky.

  • Randian||

    You have no evidence for that whatsoever.

  • WTF||

    She's got the voices in her head.

  • ||

    It was a very unwise comment. I just got overly emotional. I'm sorry.

  • Tonio||

    John just wants them off his lawn.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "Hey, we should try to get those idiots and losers to vote for US, next time."

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    For the young women of CPAC, life can be rough, as awkward advances and failed pickup lines abound.
    “It’s been a long weekend,” said Marianne Smith, 23, eyes rolling and her face resting in her hand. “Somebody asked me to join their ‘Capital Club.’”
    Asked for the worst pickup lines they’d heard at the conference, several young CPAC women revealed exceptionally bad ones.
    “‘Why don’t you give me your number so I can give you information about my radio show?’” recounted Evelyn, a young woman affiliated with the group Network of Enlightened Women, who didn’t want her last name to be printed. “I was like, ‘Ohhhh,’” she said, mimicking her own disappointment. “It was ineffective.”
  • Randian||

    That article didn't even make sense. How were any of those "pick up lines"?

  • ||

    Not all romantic interactions go so badly. What passes for game at CPAC can surprise.
    “I don’t think of myself as a fraternity brother,” one young man, his tie loosened and the collar of his blue blazer flipped up, told a young lady who smiled and laughed at his banter near the Republican National Committee’s lounge at CPAC’s exhibition hall. He soon added, “I drive a Jeep.”

    Um...wut?

  • BakedPenguin||

    "I'm not a bro, but I am bro-curious."

  • Randian||

    “‘So who’s your favorite for 2016?’ — that’s [the line] everyone [is using],” said Megan Roberts, 23, who attended CPAC with the group Students for Liberty. “I’ve been getting a lot of, ‘So where do you go to school?’ Which I don’t — I graduated.”

    First of all, those are not pick-up lines. Second of all, what woman takes umbrage at the fact that someone else thinks she looks younger than she is? Third, how dare someone think you go to college when 99% of the young people there are in college. What a travesty.

  • wareagle||

    when a story is bent on proving a narrative, there is no end to the contortions that are possible. In this case, the narrative of CPAC-goers as the political version of the Big Bang Theory in terms of schmoozing the opposite sex.

  • Randian||

    Well I counter that with this.

  • wareagle||

    I get the guy's reaction to Santorum.

  • ||

    Second of all, what woman takes umbrage at the fact that someone else thinks she looks younger than she is?

    Well, a lot do,* but what's most funny to me about it is that she's with Students for Liberty but upset someone mistakes her for a student.

    *I live in a college neighborhood, and if some college bro tried to pick me up I wouldn't be offended, but the inside-person would be rolling her eyes pretty hard. Because he would be a child! Of course, this woman is only one year out of school.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    attended CPAC with the group Students for Liberty

    Gee...why would someone think she was in college?

  • Cdr Lytton||

    I see Nikki already made the same observation. Should have scrolled down first before replying.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I think the first three words of his quote are all you really need.

  • ||

    I WISH men would awkwardly try to hit on me. It's true what they say, youth is wasted on the young.

  • kinnath||

    I'm tired of hearing about gay marriage. When are we going to get to the important stuff. I need to get a new, young wife. I'm not necessarily interested in getting rid of the old one, but another one would be nice to have around the house.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I'm thinking a pair of sixteen year old Korean twin sisters would complete the EDG household.

  • ||

    ^^^Smart man right here!!!

    He understands that on average, Koreans are the most attractive East Asians!

  • Randian||

    Is that like being first place in the Special Olympics?

  • sarcasmic||

    Are you still sore about losing to John and Cyto?

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    It's from all the pegging

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    Is that like being first place in the Special Olympics?

    This is why there are no Asian Libertarians.

  • ||

    This made me LOL.

  • kinnath||

    Twins, appealing idea you got there.

  • ||

    I find the Koreans a bit androgynous for my taste.

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    You must be mad, my dear fellow.

  • ||

    Eh, I lived in Korea for a year. The men were a bit soft and the women a bit square jawed. They do have great plastic surgeons there though. Apparently one of the reasons that members of girl groups end up looking so similar is because they all go to the same guy to get their jawlines shaved (this is according to a somewhat catty Korean woman of my acquaintance)

  • Fatty Bolger||

    The argument against polygamy is worse than the argument against gay marriage. There is no real tradition of gay marriage, but the practice of polygamy (or more accurately, polygyny) is probably older than monogamy and is still practiced throughout the world.

  • ||

    Kinnath

    Are you a masochist?

  • ||

    You can have mine. Although she's no longer young, she's guaranteed to nag the fuck out of you and spend all your money.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    Does she read H&R?

  • ||

    On occasion.

  • THIS SUX||

    Good to know the GOP finally admits it's Democrats-lite. As a matter of fact this "white paper" proves what I have suspected the bureaucracies of both parties are channeling all policy into their consensus spectrum. Your only choices are A or B, if you claim there is a choice C (or D, E, F, etc.) you get cashiered and drummed out.

  • Almanian!||

    "white paper"

    INSTITUTIONAL RACISM!!!

  • Josua||

    The GOP does not equal conservatism. However, most of the GOP seeks to present itself as being conservative; they understand that their base is conservative. So, being a conservative (but no longer a Republican), I say to conservatives:

    You can disagree with and discourage many things that you consider harmful to society without delegating the responsibility for your efforts to government.

    All of the social-engineering favored by conservatives is a diversion from the immediate and intolerable problem: Government has no respect for its constitutional limits. That is the problem, right now. I agree, (sorry, Libertarians), with the kind of society that most of you would like to have, but such a society can only exist with a much smaller, more restricted government. Such a society requires that people be convinced, not coerced, into accepting and defending such a society. It cannot happen otherwise.

    I expect one of three outcomes from a continuation of our nation's present path:

    A.) Secession of one or more groups of states from a bankrupt union.

    B.) Collapse of the currency and immediately thereafter the collapse of the federal government.

    C.) A socialist police state.

    Getting off of this road is all that matters right now. The opponents of socialism are divided. The followers aren't. That's a problem.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    You can disagree with and discourage many things that you consider harmful to society without delegating the responsibility for your efforts to government.

    And that's what they should focus on. Unfortunately, they don't want to. What fun is taking over if all you're going to do is shrink the amount of power you have?

  • Almanian!||

    I'll take the door where Carol Merrill is standing

  • sarcasmic||

    A has already been settled. B would be my preferred option. But C is what will most likely occur.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    A has already been settled.

    It's been attempted and failed, but that doesn't mean it's been settled.

    The CSA was in a very poor position to survive with no industrial base, no navy to speak of, and a weak central govt. Had the New England states seceded during the War of 1812 (which was discussed) they probably would have fared better.

  • Rasilio||

    Um, B is not an outcome because a collapse is not a final state, what exists after the collapse is.

    That said B could lead to either A and would probably be a necessary precondition of A but not C which could happen on it's own through slow evolution.

  • goneGalt||

    We are already at C (though things can always get worse).

    This will lead to condition B.

    Which opens the possibility for A.

  • ||

    OT: So, I found an interesting addition in one of the many firearms freedom acts pending in state legislatures -- in New Hampshire's, specifically, and it's still in committee, I think.

    "159-E:4 Penalty.

    I. Any public servant of the state of New Hampshire as defined in RSA 640:2 that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the government of the United States upon a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the state of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

    II. Any official, agent, or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the government of the United States upon a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the state of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B felony.

    159-E:5 Applicability. This chapter shall apply to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in this chapter, and retained in New Hampshire after January 1, 2012.

    3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2012."

  • robc||

    Im not sure that having different penalties based on employer would hold up to a challenge.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Still, it's great to see states poke the Fed in the eye.

  • Rich||

    Wait, are we talking "healthcare"?

  • Tonio||

    But it would be damn fun to see that litigated, robc.

  • Mainer2||

    I had to look it up, and sure enough, this bill was sponsored by Dan Itse, my rep, tea party guy...lives around the corner from me. I knew it had to be his bill.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    The democrats made a massive about face with regard to race after the 1964 Civil Rights Act. If the party of slavery and Jim Crow can pull off being able to market itself as the party of racial tolerance, then the Republicans can probably succeed in some of their new marketing ploys as well.

    I have little faith the party will make the right choices, but maybe, just maybe, if the likes of Rand Paul can exert some influence, maybe liberty and small government issues will take the fore.

  • Virginian||

    Yeah, but they had the media, the academy, and popular culture on their side. You do not learn in school that Bull Connor and George Wallace were Democrats. It is simply scrubbed out of the general survey texts.

    Meanwhile the reputation of the GOP has the racist party is entirely based on something called a "dog whistle". The GOP has supported every single civil rights act in American history. Every single one.

    But somehow, they're racists. Because they are. Because the media says so.

  • Drake||

    When is the GOP going to stop pissing off this middle-aged, white, breeder?

  • ||

    For the GOP to appeal to younger voters, we do not have to agree on every issue, but we do need to make sure young people do not see the Party as totally intolerant of alternative points of view.

    Perhaps, call me crazy, when asked about gay marriage, the party line could be...

    ...we in the GOP do not believe the government should be involved in this issue at all.

    There. Principles, small government and you don't alienate anyone.

  • phandaal||

    That's too easy. If the economy is the main issue in the election, you put a needlessly offensive social statement in your official platform.

    That's how a real contender does it.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    So what are they doing to get the government uninvolved? Or does "we in the GOP do not believe the government should be involved in this issue at all" really just mean "we believe in the status quo, but don't like having to defend that position"?

  • Randian||

    Given that statement isn't even the platform, you're now launching missiles based on a fantasy, which is weird.

  • Tonio||

    Sorry, Randy, issue still not going away.

  • Randian||

    But you're taking something that isn't even real and using to hammer the GOP for things it isn't doing based on this not-real thing.

    WTH?

  • Tonio||

    It's still here, Randy.

  • Randian||

    What issue is that?

  • Tonio||

    "we in the GOP do not believe the government should be involved in this issue at all"

    So, you'd have the GOP start working on dismantling any existing government licensing of marriage or special benefits to married couples? Right? Right?

    Sorry, I smell the stench of convenient cop-out, here.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    SSM is a minor issue compared to the others (on both sides, pro and anti).

    And if you guys were honest about your reasons for wanting gay marriage, you'd be satisfied with civil unions. But you're not, so you obviously have ulterior motives.

  • Tonio||

    Cop-out. But nice layering of extra bullshit. Still doesn't make it go away.

    And the charge of dishonesty and conspiracy is unprovable and unanswerable.

  • ||

    To be fair, if anyone remembers anything from history or civics class regarding the civil rights movement it's that separate is not equal. I think dropping everyone down to civil unions or a pure contract law version of marriage would be ideal, but since I don't see that happening I want equality before the law. It's a tough narrative to shake.

    Besides that even if I were all in favor of gay civil unions and straight marriages, we've seen the courts are uncomfortable with civil unions because it violates the core principles of one of the judiciaries heroic moments.

  • Tonio||

    jesse, I'd be fine with CU's for everyone , which would necessarily mean existing marriages to CU's. Which I've often stated, yet Tulpa (et als) conveniently forgets.

    mb=manitoba?

  • Tonio||

    converting existing marriages to CU's.

    Marriage would be what your church or other cultural affinity group did. CU would be what the government did.

    I'd also be good with eliminating all govt involvement in CU's (or marriages), but since there's no credible movement for that within the GOP, I'm pushing equality.

  • ||

    Civil unions for all would likely be the least contentious holistic approach just because it separates into distinct categories secular and religious marriage, but I've had religious friends and family panic over the idea because "next thing you know the homosexuals will start their own churches and call themselves married"* if the government doesn't defend the term.

    *direct quote from my mother, who clearly hasn't heard for the MCC.

    m.b. = manhattan beach (suburb of LA, not NY)

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I'm not forgetting anything. What harm is done by having existing marriages be marriages and allowing same sex couples to have CU's?

    I don't see any harm other than gays not getting a pat on the head from the govt.

  • ||

    I also see no harm in having separate drinking fountains for (whatever skin color Tulpa is) and another for the rest of us.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    To be fair, if anyone remembers anything from history or civics class regarding the civil rights movement it's that separate is not equal.

    Barf. More leftist talking points. Brown v. Board was one of the most destructive decisions in SCOTUS history, ushering in an age of judicial activism and Constitution-ignoring decisions.

    Plessy v. Ferguson was correct as far as constitutional law goes. The problem was that the facilities for blacks were never actually kept in equal condition, and obviously the back of the bus is less desirable than the front, but the courts deferred to the legislatures on the matter of determining what was equal.

    I'm not a supporter of racial segregation at all, but there's nothing ipso facto unconstitutional about it. There are stupid laws that are nonetheless constitutional.

  • ||

    I wasn't making any judgement call on the ruling. I was merely pointing out that that's something that tends to stick in kids' minds when they leave HS history classes. It's a powerful bit of narrative, and I think more than just "wanting to be validated" SSM activists see CUs peg them into a separate institution and immediately flash back to separate is not equal.

  • ||

    And if you guys were honest about your reasons for wanting gay marriage, you'd be satisfied with civil unions. But you're not, so you obviously have ulterior motives.

    Do tell, Tulpa the magnificent. What is truly in my mind?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The only reason I can see for someone demanding the word "marriage" is that they want a pat on the head from the govt, sanctioning their sexual activity.

  • ||

    Perhaps, they just want to be treated like the government treats anyone else.

    How about the government refers to EVERYTHING as civil union and leave the word marriage to the religious?

    Are you okay with that?

  • robc||

    So, you'd have the GOP start working on dismantling any existing government licensing of marriage or special benefits to married couples? Right? Right?

    Yes, yes, and yes.

    Im not sure why you asked 3 times.

    Start? Ive been working on it for over 20 years. Of course, I have only been a registered GOPer since 2007, so cant blame them for not listening to me for most of that.

    I was a registered Democrat before that (and an LP national party member).

  • Tonio||

    Repetition for emphasis. And thanks for your ongoing support. I was replying to Francis; this is the first you've weighed-in on this on this thread, so I wasn't beating you up.

  • ||

    Why were you beating me up?

  • ||

    So, you'd have the GOP start working on dismantling any existing government licensing of marriage or special benefits to married couples? Right? Right?

    Absolutely.

  • R C Dean||

    you don't alienate anyone.

    Sure you do. The majority (apparently) who beileve that the government should be involved in every issue, balls-deep.

  • ||

    Forgot.

    War is peace.

    Inaction is action.

    My bad.

  • wareagle||

    maybe the party could start by figuring out what it actually stands for. This thing called limited govt comes to mind though it appears a quaint relic to the modern GOP. Explain conservatism, low taxes, a market-based economy, and stop pandering to various interest groups and looking at people through the prisms of color, gender, and sexual orientation.

    Liberty is a hell of a message, though not to those who want the nanny state to do everything for them. The party could also show, and the evidence is voluminous, how liberalism has been a spectacular failure each time it has been tried. Just remember, the alternative can't be slightly less liberalism, it has to be the antithesis of it.

  • Tonio||

    So you, like Francis above, would just conveniently walk away from the whole marriage issue, while leaving the existing government-granted licenses and benefits in place?

  • wareagle||

    so Monday is your day to put words in people's mouths. Come back when you want to comment on things that actually were said.

  • Tonio||

    Uh, it was a question. If you want to discuss this, you could start by answering it.

  • wareagle||

    haven't advocated "walking away" from anything. Don't oppose gay marriage, either, or marriage between any two or more consenting adults. In fact, my post had nothing to do with marriage at all.

  • Tonio||

    I apologize for misinterpreting your position on this, wareagle.

  • wareagle||

    no worries...we debate, we discuss, we sometimes disagree, and usually, as grownups.

  • ||

    So you, like Francis above, would just conveniently walk away from the whole marriage issue, while leaving the existing government-granted licenses and benefits in place?

    Um...are you confusing me with someone else? When did I EVER say or even give the impression that I was in favor of leaving the existing government-granted licenses and benefits in place?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    OK, time to quit the fantasy. Limited government lost big in 2012.

    We have to acknowledge this fact and approach the electoral world as guerrilla fighters, rather than assuming our position is popular (beyond rhetoric) already.

  • Tonio||

    I'm not sure that it was limited government which lost big in 2012, unless you mean GJ.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    While he obviously wasn't a libertarian, the exit polls confirm that the reason MR/PR lost was because they were perceived as TOO much in favor of limited govt.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I don't buy that, at least not that people were rejecting "limited government" per se. If anything, people seem more willing to listen to talk about limited government than in recent years. Witness Rand Paul's rising star.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    i'm not seeing that at all. Rand Paul's star is rising among Romney voting groups. The leftists that drove BO's reelection have clearly stuffed cotton in their ears.

  • ||

    What the fuck are you talking about Tulpa?

    I heard, with my own ears, Limbaugh and Hannity BOTH praise Paul and call him a legitimate presidential candidate in 2016.

    Got it Tulpa. You don't like Paul, because he doesn't agree with many of your right wing policies...

    Move along.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I do like Paul, silly. Probably more than you since you love the murderdrones and consider Iraq to be a legitimate war.

    Limbaugh and Hannity were on the losing side in 2012. If you're going to win you need to convince people from the winning side.

  • ||

    I consider Iraq to be a legitimate war? Really? I defy you to provide a reference to that.

    I love the murderdrones? What does that even mean? I think you need to explain yourself.

  • ||

    "Limited government lost big in 2012."
    No, Tulpa, Republicans lost. Limited government still has a chance.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Republicans lost because they were perceived as supporting ltdgov.

  • ||

    The sad thing is if the GOP ran on the LP platform they'd possibly win. The LP runs on it and does nothing. It's good to be entrenched. You can have any platform you want and still have a fighting chance in EVERY election. Of course you need the more popular candidate to win, but you have a chance just by showing up with the right letter after your name.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The sad thing is if the GOP ran on the LP platform they'd possibly win.

    Uh, only if no one reads the platform.

    If they actually campaign on the LP's positions they'd be lucky to get 25% of the vote.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Government does whatever it wants, spending is so massive that it's bringing down the American economy, and we seem to be in a state of perpetual war, but gay marriage and other similar issues are what a significant percentage of the population base their votes on.

  • Tonio||

    "gay marriage and other similar issues are what a significant percentage of the population base their votes on"

    Yep, but don't tell that to Francis and PeaceDove, because they just hope that if they walk away with their fingers in their ears that the whole marriage equality thing will just go away.

    Sorry, guys, but "walking away" from the gay marriage issue without taking positive steps to dismantle existing government licensing and privileging of hetero marriages is the new "gay people can marry anyone they want as long as it's a member of the opposite sex."

  • robc||

    Ive voted to disband existing government licensing every single chance I have got over the last 25 years.

  • Paul.||

    Results have been disappointing...

  • Randian||

    Except gay marriage is essentially a fait accompli, which means getting on the (truly) progressive edge of things is a step forward, not back.

  • thom||

    This. Around here, this argument always seems to devolve into the anti-SSM crowd debating the government completely out of marriage crowd. Neither of those things are the future.

    The GOP can easily resolve a pro-SSM stance by just saying that they are the party of individuals and families, whereas the democrats are the party of groups and special interests.

  • Tonio||

    I'm the "extend benefits to everyone since it ain't going away" faction, although I'm very much in the (numerical) minority here. Although there are some here who I believe are sincere about there desire to get the government out of marriage (lookin' at you, robc!), the rhetoric of most people here espousing (!) that position is laced with sneering contempt for the gays and their aspirations which makes their claimed purity of motive unbelievable.

  • Randian||

    The rhetoric escalates because some of us are really fucking tired of being called bigots all day every day.

  • sarcasmic||

    The only possible reason to oppose redefining marriage is bigotry, and the only possible way to prove you are not a bigot is to support redefining marriage.

  • Tonio||

    Sarc, as I've often stated here, I'd love to see a single-issue "end govt involvement in marriage now" advocacy group. There are countless groups like this for every conceivable issue. Yet, somehow, despite the claims that this is an actual issue, such a group does not exist. That strains belief.

  • sarcasmic||

    despite the claims that this is an actual issue

    I don't know who made that claim. I just see it as the proper solution to the problem. Once there is no government force behind the definition of the word, there is nothing left to argue about.

  • thom||

    "Once there is no government force behind the definition of the word, there is nothing left to argue about."

    Except that people will inevitably attempt to set up some other sort of similar institution and the argument will begin anew.

    Alternatively, the word can just be made all inclusive, and then there really isn't anything to argue about.

  • sarcasmic||

    Except that people will inevitably attempt to set up some other sort of similar institution and the argument will begin anew.

    No. No it won't. Because the vast majority of people who oppose redefining marriage have no issue with legal protections for same sex couples, as long as it is called something else.

    Alternatively, the word can just be made all inclusive, and then there really isn't anything to argue about.

    Wow. Talk about not getting it.

  • thom||

    Your first statement is false. People who oppose "re-defining" marriage may claim such, but a good number (most?) of them are lying.

    Maybe we should just change the word for everybody. I'm sure then the weird, bigoted hatred of gays would just go away.

  • robc||

    The group exists, as Ive pointed out to you in the past.

    It is called robc. Its a group of one, sure, but it is a group.

  • Tonio||

    I think you're confusing me with dunphy.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The rhetoric escalates because some of us are really fucking tired of being called bigots all day every day.

    THIS. It's bizarre to see Tonio of all people whining about "rhetoric escalating".

  • wareagle||

    jesus tonio, you are so full of shit there ought be a septic tank attached to you. I didn't say squat about walking away from anything. I would just as soon govt treat marriage for what it is, a contract.

    The provisions extend to the consenting persons who entered without coercion, and the state's role is as a means of seeking redress if one party feels the provisions have been violated. You are so wrapped up on your my-way-or-no-way cocoon that anyone outside that immediate echo chamber is the enemy.

  • Tonio||

    Duly noted.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Francis? You mean the Pope?

  • Paul.||

    No, that guy from Stripes.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I thought he was the Pope now.

  • sarcasmic||

    Citizens! In all times, two political systems have been in existence, and each may be maintained by good reasons. According to one of them, Government ought to do much, but then it ought to take much. According to the other, this two-fold activity ought to be little felt. We have to choose between these two systems. But as regards the third system, which partakes of both the others, and which consists in exacting everything from Government, without giving it anything, it is chimerical, absurd, childish, contradictory, and dangerous. Those who parade it, for the sake of the pleasure of accusing all governments of weakness, and thus exposing them to your attacks, are only flattering and deceiving you, while they are deceiving themselves.
    --Bastiat

    That first system is what liberals want, the second system is what libertarians want, and that third system is what we've got.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I'm unclear on how the GOP is not inclusive of women and minorities already.

    If your answer is that they don't support forcing employers to pay for contraceptives and allowing open borders, you're buying into the Dems' wedge issue rhetoric, a major epidemic here at Reason these days. The GOP isn't at all hostile to racial minority citizens or legal residents or women's freedom to purchase whatever contraceptives they want.

    If one wanted to really cut the crap, one would ask why Hispanic citizens base their votes on which party will allow the most members of their race to break the law. Or do you not want to talk about THAT racism?

  • Tonio||

    Why yes, Tulpa, you are unclear on that.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Maybe you could clarify.

  • sarcasmic||

    Anyone who has tried understands that it is an exercise in futility.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    As futile as my attempts to get Reasonoids to self-examine their repetition of leftist talking points, no doubt.

  • sarcasmic||

    For example?

  • thom||

    "NBC News described the report as “audacious” in its efforts to revitalize the party."

    But is it audaciously hopeful?

  • Gladstone||

    This coming from the same Reason that wants to get rid Social Security and Medicare? That'll win over Teh Yutes.

  • ||

    Let me say it again: Sorry John.

  • ant1sthenes||

    The Republican National Committee has a new report out today, the findings of the party’s Growth and Opportunity Project.

    The GOP has a GOP?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I suspect that, for a lot of Americans (including some young people and gays), the idea of deregulating marriage would be considered objectively anti-gay. Once you disclose that you want secular for-profit companies to define marriage however they like, then the response will be that teh KOCHtopus has induced you to cave in to corporate interests. True equality, to these folks, means having laws against anti-gay discrimination in the private sector, under the analogy of laws against racial discrimination. If you're not willing to extend the discrimination laws to make gays a protected class, then you will be called the moral equivalent of a racist.

  • ||

    Your head must be a really fun place to live.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So, nobody actually thinks like that?

    What about the New York Times, when a sexual orientation "civil rights" bill was being considered in Congress in 2007?

    Here is the NY Times editorial on that subject. Notice in particular the concluding paragraph:

    "The reasons the White House has given for opposing the bill — that it would be too burdensome on businesses and that it would lead to too much litigation — echo the ones given by opponents of every previous civil rights bill to pass Congress in the past 50 years or so. That parallel should make Mr. Bush and other opponents reconsider whether they want to be *on the side of bigotry,* and on the wrong side of history."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11......html?_r=0

    Notice the references to racial discrimination and being "on the side of bigotry."

    But don't take my word for it - try explaining to a NPR-listener, or NYT reader, that because of your desire to deregulate marriage and sex, you don't think the government should be telling secular, for-profit businesses who they can hire, who they can do business with, and what workplace benefits policies they can adopt.

    I almost look forward to seeing people here - at least those who like to demonize SSM opponents - find themselves on the receiving end of such tactics.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement