RNC Votes Unanimously Backing Traditional Marriage


#1

The Republican National Committee voted unanimously Friday to reaffirm the party’s view that marriage should strictly be the union of one man and one woman, rebuffing its chairman’s call for the party to be more tolerant on social issues.

Less than a month ago, National Chairman Reince Priebus released a 98-page document that appraised his party’s political liabilities in an attempt to re-brand the party and attract voters following last November’s election setbacks.

However, the RNC’s resolved to uphold its stance on marriage, declaring that the union between a man and a woman is “the optimum environment in which to raise healthy children for the future of America,” reports the Wall Street Journal.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com RNC Votes Unanimously Backing Traditional Marriage

I never believe polls that claim otherwise because I know in this age that polls can be falsified.

Just as Obama claimed everyone supported Obamacare when even today a majority do not and dislike is growing after seeing what it is doing to Americans


#2

I disagree with this.


#3

FL: Of course you do!


#4

And you know a majority disagrees based off of…polls?


#5

Remember that even if 55% of Americans support SSM, that doesn’t mean that they will feel so strongly about the issue that they would ignore important things like foreign policy and the economy. Just because a majority supports something doesn’t mean that politicians opposing it are doomed.


#6

LB…that’s a good point…and WHY I vote republican exclusively despite some strong disagreements on certain platoform issues.
The problem is…you don’t gain any NEW repubs when you drive against a growing majority in your platform.

And concurrently today, for the first time REGISTERED voters are in an absolute majority in favor of gay marriage:
"**A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll **released earlier in the day found that 53 percent of registered voters now favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, with 40 percent in opposition. The poll found that 54 percent of independents back gay marriage, but 66 percent of Republicans oppose it."

The actual RNC resolution reads: Resolved, the Republican National Committee reaffirms our commitment to the core values of the Republican Party as stated in the 2012 Republican Platform approved by the delegates to the Republican National Convention on August 28, 2012.

RESOLUTION FOR MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN 2013

Whereas, the institution of marriage is the solid foundation upon which our society is built and in which children thrive; it is based on the relationship that only a man and a woman can form; and

Whereas, support for marriage has been repeatedly affirmed nationally in the 2012 Republican National Platform, through the enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, (signed into law by President Bill Clinton), and passed by the voters of 41 States including California via Proposition 8 in 2008; and

Whereas, no Act of human government can change the reality that marriage is a natural and most desirable union; especially when procreation is a goal; and

Whereas, the future of our country is children; it has been proven repeatedly that the most secure and nurturing environment in which to raise healthy well adjusted children is in a home where both mother and father are bound together in a loving marriage; and

Whereas, The U. S. Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of laws adopted to protect marriage from the unfounded accusation that support for marriage is based only on irrational prejudice against homosexuals; therefore be it

Resolved, the Republican National Committee affirms its support for marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and as the optimum environment in which to raise healthy children for the future of America; and be it further

Resolved, the Republican National Committee implores the U. S. Supreme Court to uphold the sanctity of marriage in its rulings on California’s Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Standing athwart the liberty and justice for all train track and yelling **STOP **is not a formula for survival let alone winning.

To your point…politicians in red states/districts will probably be able to get away with supporting the purple above for several more cycles.
It will cost them purple districts in close races…and more districts will become purple over time due to the age break in support.
Of course, we’ll have two court decisions by July…so the platform may not matter much. We shall see.


#7

At the end of the day, you have to stand up for your beliefs, no matter how unpopular they may be. That being said, it does not look like history is on the side of the opponents of same sex marriage, and if the Court rules against DOMA, they will go down in history right alongside George Wallace.


#8

The GOP takes pointless votes like this every so often to make Conservatives think that they can be at home in the Republican Party.

When the votes that count (actual legislation and judicial confirmations) come around they vote to keep pushing private property rights off the cliff and establishing more Statist bureaucracies that regulate citizens from cradle to grave.

Conservatives should greet this with a collective yawn.


#9

However, there is a good chance that they will say that this has to be left up to the states at the Supreme Court. If they do that, there is no method by which to repeal DOMA. I’m just saying. I however think that of all the things we fight on, this has got to be at the bottom of the list. What is more important, our economy or this? Our security or this? Our fiscal policy or this? Our freedoms or this? I think we have to drop this argument. As Steel pointed out, we’re getting to that point of Wallace and Segregation. At some point, some issues have to die. This one, whether you approve of it or not, should not be denied. Having sex as a teenager is a bad idea and having sex outside of wedlock is not permitted in the bible, yet not a single law exists for either of those.

I would say there still remains one stipulation. That a Church cannot be forced to condone or perform the marriage. To sacrifice the First Amendment for the Fourteen is not an acceptable answer. This is at the government level. The government shouldn’t ban gay marriage. Your church is a sovereign entity as far as I am concerned. And they can’t scream discrimination because they holds rules that ban others. I can’t get married in a synagogue. Doesn’t mean Jews are discriminating against me. An Amendment stating that no church or religious institution can in any be forced against their will to break the doctrines of their faith. Any lawsuit of discrimination brought against a church for refusing to perform the ceremony should preemptively be written off as null and void. Any church that wishes to do so willing (there have been a few I hear) can of course do so.


#10

Sounds to me like the RNC is trying to give the impression of having some backbone by choosing an issue that won’t effect them one way or the other.


#11

It would be nice if that were the case, FL, but a lesbian couple already sued a church, and won:

Ocean Grove, a United Methodist Church in New Jersey, was successfully sued by a lesbian couple for not allowing them to be married on Ocean Grove’s grounds. The site in question is Ocean Groves’ seaside pavilion which is used in worship ceremonies. Ocean Grove argued under the First Amendment they have the right to not allow marriages they do not recognize on their grounds, the judge did not agree. Judge Solomon Metzger ruled Ocean Grove had to allow such marriages then went one step further and revoked Ocean Groves tax-exempt status on the pavilion and surrounding grounds. The tax-exempt status has since been re-instated for most of the grounds after the church re-filed for the exemption.

Gay Marriage Forced On Church’s | Funny Political Blog | Conservative Blog | USA Political Website

It would be nice, too, if all they wanted was 'EQUAL protection under the law, but it’s been proven time and again by their own words that their goals are far more ambitious than that.
They want to change the whole definition of religion, they want to infiltrate the schools, and change the very fabric of our nation.

If all they wanted was ‘equal protection under the law’, they’d be happy with Civil Unions, and so would I. But they’re not. How come?


#12
  1. Unfortunately you are posting a red herring. The CHURCH rented out its’ property as a PUBLIC accomodation and MUST under the law adhere to local and state and federal anti-discrimination policies with regard to such RENTALS. No one has forced that church to perform any ceremonies that were against its’ principles. No one forces them to rent out their property to the public. Once you decide to do that you enter the secular realm and must follow secular law.
  2. Just as soon as all heterosexuals are happy with ONLY civil unions in the entire secular realm for all AND all of the benefits of “marriage” being applied to such unions, then I think you might have a point . As long as you want secular state sponsored marriage for some and secular state sponsored civil unions for others…you lose the argument. Of course…before the marriage issue arose…the same So-cons who now argue against marriage were arguing against civil unions. The only reason they’re for civil unions NOW is because they’ve just realized that they’ve lost the marriage battle.
    As a point of information …there are over 1000 FEDERAL benefits and rules and regulations that apply ONLY to marriages. And states have many of their own.
    Civil Marriage for all takes care of this nicely in a way that state based civil unions do NOT!

#13

Comparing traditional marriage advocates to racists, that is exactly why the “polls” show same sex marriage winning. People say they are in favor of it so they wont get demonized.


#14

And the voting booth results this fall were because they were afraid of being exposed as well?? Puhleeze… ALL the polls…all the year to year surveys are wrong because people are afraid of being exposed as gay bashing racists? Hope you’re right…hope lots more people share your fears and vote accordingly.
You being right instead of being DEAD WRONG…would only bring welcome change faster and put those who BELONG IN THE CLOSET out to pasture while letting those who came out have equal rights under the law.
WISHING the polls didn’t reflect reality is a common curse of those who don’t live in the real world.


#15

You make so many assumptions here that it isn’t even funny.

For starters, I was fighting for “Equal Protection Under the Law” for gays LONG before this became a national issue. So I’ll thank you not to assume very much about me.

To take a few point out of your quote:

As long as you want secular state sponsored marriage for some and secular state sponsored civil unions for others…you lose the argument

Why? The same rights would apply to all.
And I’ve never said anything about “State sponsored marriages.” I even went to so far as to say that, as difficult as it would be for me to accept my union with my husband as a “Civil Union”, (as we were married by a JP, although by the Bible MARRIAGE verse), I would, if it would end the argument.
Why? Because the “rite of marriage” belongs to the church. And the question of marriage ought to be if one is considered “married” under the auspices of the particular different religious doctrines; not by the government.
It has absolutely nothing whatever to do with whether or not they are considered married under the law.

there are over 1000 FEDERAL benefits and rules and regulations that apply ONLY to marriages. And states have many of their own.

As are the individual states’ rights, as marriage has ALWAYS been a states’ rights issue, and should remain so. Why you want the federal government sticking it’s nose into it more than it has, I don’t know. The 'marriage penalty when I file my taxes would be one of them.

Civil Marriage for all takes care of this nicely in a way that state based civil unions do NOT!

No, it doesn’t.
There is no Constitutional right to marry. Ergo, via the 10th Amendment, it is a states’ rights issue.
Or do you want the federal government to keep proclamating that Catholic schools must house gay couples in their dorms for married couples?

I will always be in favor of equal protection under the law. What I will never abide is special protection under the law.


#16

Washington: 53.7%
Maine: 52.7%
Maryland: 52.4%

those are pretty close, in very liberal states. Obama won these states by much more than that.

And yes, many off them probably thought “if I vote against this, in 20 years I’ll be viewed just like a racist.” It’s very effective.


#17

An argument that wasn’t so effective in California in 2008. Instead we had “redefinition of traditional marriage”, “churches will be forced to do gay ceremonies”, “think of the children!”, “aren’t a good christian if you vote for prop. 8” and those are also very effective (prop 8 passed w/52.24% in one of the more gay friendly states). More people are voting for it now because they’re seeing gay marriage and realizing that the world isn’t ending.


#18

If you tell a big lie and repeat it enough times, people will believe it. It has worked time and time again.

If you are constantly bombarded with a message of “you’re a bigot,” eventually you will start to think that you are. I was born in 1996, and in that year only 25% of people supported SSM. The reason for the change of opinion is people being afraid to stand up for truth and normalcy because they are told that truth and normalcy is bigotry.


#19

And I was born in 1990, I’m guessing the percentage was even lower than. My grandfather was born in 1925 Georgia when nobody would’ve understood or cared about the “bigot” charge (indeed they probably would have welcomed it). The definition “Truth and normality” changes with the times, what was normal in '96 is different now.


#20

RNC Votes Unanimously Backing Traditional Marriage

This is completely unexpected /s