A scandal-scarred Republican party asks, 'What next?'

The key here is that this politician bases many of his stances on these moral issues & his public stance is obviously quite different than his personal stance.

This wouldn't be as big of a deal if it were a democrat. Not because of a media bias, but because if he were a democrat he wouldn't be trying to thrust his morals on others.

 

You know better than that. Martin doesn't want the government to spend hardly any money, and he equally doesn't want us to tax us very much.

The nation doesn't have a trust fund or rich daddy, but we do have a bunch of kids that will grow up to be Dr's that can support us.

 

is he proposing a law that makes it illegal to solicit man on man action?

this is a non-story, i dunno who is the victim. presumably the victims are the people in the airport, who do not want homos sending their signals and whatnot. i think if a homo were sendin me arcane signals under the stalls in the ****ter i would ignore it or tell the dude to **** off and then go about my business. the worst case scenario for the fag should be that a security guy comes in there and tells him to scram.

i dunno, it isnt like republicans are trying to make it illegal to be gay.

i would see the hypocrisy if this dude just signed an anti-gambling bill, and was secretly betting on vick's dogs. but the anti-gay stuff that the republicans favor is of no consequence and for the most part doesnt affect gays or anyone at all.

i would love it if this guy just came out and said "look, i like the ladies, and i have a family, but once in a while i like a random guy in the airport to lick my junk. no big deal." then pay his fine or whatever continue on as if nothing happened.

i dunno why everyone has to freak out because homeboy is a fag. for once i wish a policitian or anyone who has a vice of some kind would tell everyone to go to hell.

also that was an outstanding post above by purple tiger.

 

Republicans have already tried to do that by making oral sex illegal in many states. While his policy is anti gay-marriage, which isn't exactly the same thing as anti-gays, it is close enough.

If they could get away with it they absolutely would.

 

anti-gay marriage isnt anti-gay at all. the moden mainstream republican is not anti-gay. a couple are, but just a few. for many politicians, gay marriage is a states-rights issue, not really a moral one. it is hard to decide how much respect states have to grant marriages from other states.

and plenty of democrats are on the same page as the republicans. john kerry is anti-gay marriage. george bush and john kerry both are fine with civil unions.

and the oral sex laws, nobody takes that stuff seriously. there might be two lunatic republicans in national politics that favor that. and i have never heard of this law being enforced anywhere, ever.

a real scandal is when you get a million dollar kickback on a construction deal in your district, not when you stick your fingers under the bathroom stall and hope a homo on the other sides wants to taste your dong.

that is freaking ridiculous, of course they wouldnt. absurd caricature of republicans.

 

Just because politicians can't publically get away with being anti-gay doesn't mean that they aren't. If they aren't anti-gay, why would they care about gay marriage?

Regardless, the politicians that passed the law took it serious enough.

Personally, I could care less about this.

Not all republicans, but as a broad generalization, I stick behind what I said.

 

they may be anti gay personally, but in practice they are opposed to changing the definition of marriage to include gays. if you allow civil unions, and george bush and many mainstream republicans do, you are basically saying you do not care what gays do, you just care about word definitions. and that is certainly stupid, but it isnt anti-gay.

i have never heard of this, but i would guess those are some loony republicans in a state legislature in a pathetic state in the middle of nowhere. probably years ago, and possibly an urban legend.

maybe 1% of national mainstream republicans are crazy enough to care about this stuff enough to wat to outlaw gays. maybe rick santorum, and he was ousted in 2006.

i think that is a pretty unfair portrayal of republicans. these days even the christians have smartened up enough to not go nuts about gay stuff.

 

Word definitions may seem like a silly thing, but they mean a lot to gay people in this case.

You always find out if things are urban legends or myths... You didn't try to look this one up on your website? This is not one of those cases, and Louisiana is one of those pathetic states in the middle of nowhere.

There's a big difference between personal feelings & public opinions. Christians & republicans have learned that they can't get away with outlawing homosexuality, but that doesn't mean that their personal feelings on it have changed. I maintain that most republicans are anti-gays.

 

And this is why I say that anti-gay marriage is closely tied with anti-gays. The republicans have simply toned down what they can get away with. They haven't really changed their opinions on the matter (even though many more are accepting of it now than their used to be, we're still talking generalizations).

 

right, and the gays are idiots. both sides are stupid. who cares if the gays get their stupid word? if i made a law today that said "cparso is hereby not allowed to get 'married'. he can have a ceremony and he can say he is married, and he can live as if he is married, but the government paperwork will use a slightly different word", would you care?

the government doesnt define your relationship, no matter who you are. the government just pushes paper and applications and forms around.

i would like to see a story of a person arrested for having oral sex in private. i have never heard of it, even in the deepest darkest corners of the bible belt. this is like one of those law you hear of like it is illegal to tie up your mule after midnight in kalamazoo michigan. never enforced, for practical purposes, a joke.

some certainly are, but my suspicion is that most of them have a little more modern outlook. even if they are, it is no big deal. the closet socialist is far more scary than the homophobe.