So, Alicia Preston, does this mean that the NH GOP should be FOR Abortion? By your argument, it should be, right? - Granite Grok

So, Alicia Preston, does this mean that the NH GOP should be FOR Abortion? By your argument, it should be, right?

WeddingRings-GayHillary: “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.

(H/T:  Progressives and The Proper Role of Government – and your subservience to it).  That WOULD be your argument if you were intellectually and philosophically honest, Ms. Preston.

Well, if JHo said she wanted a “conversation”, well, no, she didn’t – she either wants the NH GOP to cave on the issue or cement the ties in making the UniParty stronger.  Or once again doing her political opportunism schtick.  Or all three.  Regardless of the number, it all adds up to the same thing – you SHALL subsume your own personal beliefs in serving the Party.  You know, becoming part of the “Republican Collective”.   I’m scratching my head – Collective?  Huh?  I thought that Republicans all thought for themselves – oh wait, that’s what the GOPe demands (again, the rant I have yet to post). But no, she doesn’t want a conversation, she’s demanding a conversion.  Ain’t gonna happen for her any more than it would be for that other harridan’s demand.

This makes no sense to me. Not because of my personal opinion in support of gay marriage or marriage equality, but because of what the Republican party Platform is supposed to be: a guide for how Republicans would or should govern. There is no governing to be had on the issue of gay marriage. Three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled marriage was a right for everyone, including same-sex couples. Done. Settled law. It is not going to change. No one is going to vote to take away a right that has been granted.And now political operative Alicia Preston has a piece at the SeacoastOnline on the same jeremiad: “it’s been decided by SCOTUS – Move On”. Hmmm, isn’t there a Progressive organization named that which formed in trying to move conversations of a sitting President using his Power Privilege over a then 22 year old intern and made a DNA donation? Same deal – sorta sideways?

Hmmm, wasn’t the Republican Party founded on the deep-seated…religious beliefs concerning slavery which was “settled law” at the time?  Where would this country be if “Move On” was the Republican way back then? It got changed.

Hmmm, last time I knew, SCOTUS also made a little decision called Roe vs Wade concerning abortion; last time I looked, a lot of Republicans refused to accept “settled law” and “move on”. They are still fighting that decision – and are winning both the culture war and the political war on that abortion issue because of their deep-seated…religious beliefs.  The country is now moving more towards a pro-life stance – and yet, in a similar, folks like JHo and Preston would have folks like me throw in the towel completely?

Let’s dissect this next bit, shall we?

The Republican Party is a political organization – not a church, not a moral outpost – a political organization. That means its statements of principles and details within the platform should be, and only be, a snapshot as to what the expectations of elected officials under the umbrella of “Republican” would do while in office. No one can do anything with the issue of marriage while in office, because the Supreme Court has said so. So, why is it in there? It does nothing but serve to make Republicans, including me, look like homophobes. I am not saying my friends who have continually opposed gay marriage in support of “traditional” marriage are actually homophobes, I’m saying that by keeping it in a platform when there is no action that can be taken to address the “issue” it makes us look that way and will damage Republican candidate success in November. It’s outdated. Not because of the issue, because of the law of the land. It’s officially time to move on.

1) The Republican Party is a political organization – not a church, not a moral outpost – a political organization. This is true at least  at the superficial level.  What Alicia fails to go into, however, that in governing – both enacting and enforcing legislation – they are creating a public morality.  Morality – of the body politic.  The Dems are great at this – being far more unchurched and from their beginnings acted like their political beliefs were as religious as any High Liturgical service – they have no problem in demanding that the general public take a knee to their secular humanism codified into law.  After all, it was Progressives that threatened Catholic nuns that served only the poor and dying and whose deep-seated…religious beliefs were trampled and huge fines threatened if they did not follow the Progressive orthodoxy.  The State over a state of grace.

Sorry, Alicia, while there is the X-axis (Democrat vs Republican), and the Y-axis (Liberty vs Tyranny), there is also Z-axis, a sense of right and wrong.  Are we, according to you, just will away our Z-axis which for many, is far more important than the X or Y axis? Er, no.  Sorry, but for many, that Z-axis is FAR more important than the other two.  So, where do you stand on that news?

So, are you telling us that in order to be a “good” Republican, one must check our beliefs in the Republican coatroom in order to be part of the so-called Big Tent?  You’re a political operative, Alicia – what wing of the Party does a lot of the work for the Party?  By stiffing them now, just like the Democrats have done for decades (re: Obama and his “bitter clingers to their religion and guns” statement), you’re belittling them just as certain as Hillary and Obama – albeit with nicer words but the intent is the same.

2) “look like homophobes. ” Ah, yes – the falling for the Democrat perversion of our common language hook, line, and sinker.  You’re a message specialist – and you’ve just thrown up your hands over being labeled as such.  You know better than that – having a disagreement over gay marriage DOESN’T make one homophobic but letting Progressives get away with redefining the language right from underneath you without protesting it, well, you know that you aren’t but for simply political reasons, you’re caving in.

You can only be labeled when you get on your knees and bow your head and start waiting for that sword to fall.  There’s a phrase that describes that behavior.

3) “It’s outdated” – So’s my religion according to atheists – simply a grotesque hang-over from a time when superstition ran the world. Hey, you’re UNENLIGHTENED, you knuckledraggers (and back to the bitter clingers line again.  Get with the program – we’ve PROGRESSED!

I always ask the pregnant question: progress to WHAT?  And no, the Progressive happy talk never answers the question and I’m so sick of that stupid, inane, and falsehood that it’s all about “the arc of History”.  But squishes have to believe it mostly because they are intellectually and morally unable to make cogent arguments as to why it holds as much water as the silly “weapons of war” talking points.

4) “It’s officially time to move on.” – ah yes, once again it’s the “take it off the table so the Democrats can’t use it as a political club” phrase again.  I’ve heard it about abortion, I’ve heard it now about gay marriage – all sorts of issues.  You know where you end up with because you no longer want to fight for Principles?

Standing for nothing and no foundation left on which to base your politics.  Absolute values vs subjective ones – again, the Progressive political tool.  When nothing is absolute and nothing is worth fighting for, you’ll fight for anything but never understanding for what nor for why?

A couple of other things that I will leave for later posts because they deserve it (if I remember):

A) “you would be advocating not to grant someone a right, but to actually take it away.”

B) “It took me years to evolve on the issue” (I HATE that word. Once again, it comes down to having Principles – and that word “evolves” now means “Political Opportunism” – think of how many Democrats keep twisting in the political breeze (as well as Republicans) by doing the 180 shift simply to save their own self-serving political butts)

C) “The dust up did, however, bring to light the reality the New Hampshire Republican Party, and the national party platform, recognize marriage as the “union between one man and one woman” and both also reference “traditional marriage,” which carries with it the same definition.”  So nine black robed, unelected jurists are allowed to simply redefine our common terminology that has lasted for thousands of years?  Like they ruled that a beginning new life is not worthy of the same protections as another baby that has moved its physical position from inside to outside via delivery?

Consider yourself Grokked.

********************

The complete piece:

Why is the issue of gay marriage still included in the New Hampshire Republican Party Platform?

Last week, delegates to the party gathered for the annual convention, a time to review and potentially revise changes to the platform. One person who planned to suggest changes to reverse the party’s stated opposition to gay marriage was removed as a delegate because she had moved out of the ward she was elected in. There’s some conflict about her removal, but I wasn’t there and am not intimately familiar with the rules of the party nor its convention. The dust up did, however, bring to light the reality the New Hampshire Republican Party, and the national party platform, recognize marriage as the “union between one man and one woman” and both also reference “traditional marriage,” which carries with it the same definition.

This makes no sense to me. Not because of my personal opinion in support of gay marriage or marriage equality, but because of what the Republican party Platform is supposed to be: a guide for how Republicans would or should govern. There is no governing to be had on the issue of gay marriage. Three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled marriage was a right for everyone, including same-sex couples. Done. Settled law. It is not going to change. No one is going to vote to take away a right that has been granted.

The Republican Party is a political organization – not a church, not a moral outpost – a political organization. That means its statements of principles and details within the platform should be, and only be, a snapshot as to what the expectations of elected officials under the umbrella of “Republican” would do while in office. No one can do anything with the issue of marriage while in office, because the Supreme Court has said so. So, why is it in there? It does nothing but serve to make Republicans, including me, look like homophobes. I am not saying my friends who have continually opposed gay marriage in support of “traditional” marriage are actually homophobes, I’m saying that by keeping it in a platform when there is no action that can be taken to address the “issue” it makes us look that way and will damage Republican candidate success in November. It’s outdated. Not because of the issue, because of the law of the land. It’s officially time to move on.

In making this argument, some have countered me with the fact I don’t oppose a pro-life stance being in the platform and that too is Supreme Court-determined settled law. Well, that’s very different. One, there are several places people can govern on the matter including issues of parental notification or consent, late-term abortion, funding, etc. Two, regardless of where one stands on the issue, there are arguments to be had about the granting of rights. I’ve always said no one is going to come to an agreement or middle ground on this issue because pro-choice people are discussing the rights of the pregnant woman and pro-life people are discussing the rights of the unborn baby. Will a Supreme Court ever overturn its ruling on the issue of abortion? I doubt it. But that doesn’t mean there is not governing to take place on the issue or merit to the discussion of granting rights. That’s a big difference. When it comes to gay marriage, or stated support to define marriage as a “union between one man and one woman” you would be advocating not to grant someone a right, but to actually take it away. That is not going to happen. Nor should it.

I get holding on to the old way of things. It took me years to evolve on the issue, but by the time New Hampshire legalized same-sex marriage in 2010, I had. Now, however, my opinion on its legality is as irrelevant as everyone else’s. Holding on to an ideal that cannot be achieved, only to the detriment of the party as a whole, will do nothing but allow for fewer Republicans to be elected to govern on the many important issues they hold dear such as smaller government, lower taxes, a strong business community and an adherence to our constitutional rights, which now includes the right for gay couples to marry.

Alicia Preston can be reached at PrestonPerspective@gmail.com.