Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Prop 8 upheld?!

California actually did something RIGHT?! Interpreted the law without bending it to meet a social agenda? You've gotta be kidding me! When was the last time this happened? Never? I am completely surprised that this was upheld. As soon as it passed in November I immediately thought that it would be overturned. You know, similar to the way they took our vote away the first time we voted on the gay marriage issue years ago (was it 2000 or 2004? I can't remember).

What many people don't seem to understand is that prop 8 was not the ideal way to oppose gay marriage in CA. No one wanted to change the constitution, it just ended up being the only way to let the people have a voice. The first time the voters decreed that CA would not allow same sex marriage, four people on the CA supreme court nullified the vote of millions. This was a huge slap in the face to the people who had voted... essentially telling us that it didn't matter what we voted for, they were going to do what they wanted. Umm, how about no. We pay you to work for us. So, they had to create an ammendment to reverse the order of those 4 stupid egotistical judges. The people agreed. Prop 8 passed.

Now, I think that it's necessary to comment on the moral argument that is espoused by so many liberals. "Shame" on us. We are not doing the "right" thing. Gay people deserve as many "rights" as the rest of us. Why do we always have to be shamed when we don't agree with liberals? What is it about your moral position that gives you the right to shame me out of mine? Shame on you! This was never an "equal rights" issue. It was a legal one. You took away our vote, and we took it back. Simple as that.

Furthermore, the rights thing doesn't have to be an issue at all. I am all for civil unions, in CA and anywhere else. I don't want gay people to be prohibited from owning property together or seeing each other in the hospital or whatever. Go ahead, civilly unite to your heart's content. I probably tend to lean libertarian on this issue actually, because I don't really think the gov't should have anything to do with marriage at all. To me, marriage is a religious institution, not a government one. The problem with allowing gay "marriage" is due to my religious beliefs about marriage. The Catholic church has always stood against gay marriage, and would not allow it. If CA had rejected prop 8, gay marriages would be legal. Then, in a few years, a gay couple would want to be married in the Catholic church. The Church would say "Umm, we don't think so." Can you guess what would happen then?! You better believe they'd slap a big fat discrimination lawsuit on the Church. The court (being the liberal P.O.S. that it is, would probably side with the gays. Then what? The Church would either have to change 2000 years of Church teaching or be sanctioned by the gov't or whatever. At that point, you're infringing on MY right to freedom of religion. The gov't shouldn't EVER be allowed to tell any religion what to do. But that's where its going.

So yeah, I'm gonna stand against it. You can take your "shame on you"s and shove it. I DON'T want gay people to have limited rights. They deserve happiness every bit as much as the rest of us. But I also don't appreciate the law bypassing the wishes of the people in the sake of being "progressive". That's how we got into this mess in the first place.

OH! And just in case you were wondering, Obama feels much the same way. Why so silent about the gays, Barry? Don't want them to find out that you're anti gay marriage too?! Miss California got slammed on her one answer to the gay marriage question... too bad Perez Hilton didn't know that Obama probably agreed with her. And everyone's favorite target Sarah Palin has actually stood for gay rights in her state, vetoing a bill that would have limited their rights. But you probably haven't heard anything about any of that, have you?

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Dear GOP...

Dear RNC,

I just wanted to thank you so much for the phone call this week. I was just starting to think that you had forgotten about me, since its been so long since I've heard from you! Oh wait, just kidding, I hear from you ALL THE TIME. I know you probably haven't noticed, but every time you write/call/email you're asking for money! This is surely an oversight, I'm sure. I know I mean much more to you than that :)

I was thinking after our chat this week that there were a few things I really didn't get to say... I know you had some nice stats about how Obama is the tax-and-spend liberal that we all know him to be, and that was a nice touch. It might have worked on someone who uses the mainstream media as their only source of information. But sadly, I keep myself informed. Did you really expect me to contribute money to the mess that is the RNC right now? Moderates are attacking conservatives, conservatives are thrashing moderates, all at the prodding of the lefties in charge. You're letting them win. You're letting them brand us as the party of "NO". There has been few (if any) attempts to stop the infighting. Do you really expect the GOP to make a comeback in 2010 and 2012 if we can't get along? I don't know if you've realized this, but its going to take both conservatives and moderate republicans if we're ever going to have a comeback. Either group doesn't have the numbers to pull it off without the other side. And lets be real, either side is better than Obambi, who's national security motto is about as effective as a petulant 3-year-old's ("You guyyyyyyssssss, DOOOOOOOOOOOON'T! I'm gonna tell the U.N. if you don't stoooooooopppp").

So here's my advice if you want to pick up the fund raising efforts: Get your act together. Steele needs to either sack up or get the eff out of the way for someone who can. This is not the party of the rich white old guy. We've got talented people like Zo and Steven Crowder who are doing a better job of things than you are. Obama is giving you an endless amount of material to nail him with, so get on it. And furthermore, who do you really think contributes to the GOP, moderates or conservatives? People who are only moderately tied to the principles that the GOP espouses or people who are in it whole-heartedly? Yeah, that's what I thought. Soooooo you might want to keep that in mind. I'm not really gonna stress myself too hard to help you out when you have no idea which way is up or what the party stands for. So there ya go. :)

Glad we had the chance to chat though! I look forward to your next letter,


Thursday, May 7, 2009

What the GOP needs

The big topic of conversation this week seems to be the in-fighting within the republican party. Some call for a break and the creation of a new party in order to preserve conservative principles that have been abandoned by the GOP. Others argue that a third party is the road to nowhere... a la Ross Perot or Ralph Nader. A third party would arguably take votes away from the republican party without compromising the democrats, which would effectively ensure their control indefinitely. So, without a split in the party, where is the GOP to go from here? Do they embrace the moderates, led by the Meghan McCains of the party, who state that the social conservative issues (i.e. gay marriage, abortion, immigration) are the path to lost elections? Or are the social conservatives (think Huckabee fans) the true base that should not be ignored?

My question is this: why do we have to pick one over the other? Who says that the GOP can't show some diversity? Why is it that we are constantly telling each other to get the hell out of the party? Why aren't we focusing on the common ground? The tea parties have shown that there is a large segment of the population who are in favor of smaller government, less taxes, and personal responsibility. At what point did we give over all control over what it means to be a republican? The democrats have been very successful at branding the GOP as the party of the old, rich, uncaring, white male. They see the desire for smaller government and less taxes and they tell us that this means that we are anti-poor. Is this what we mean? Of course not! But we haven't done a very good job of explaining how personal responsibility relates to charity and helping the less fortunate. The facts tell us that conservatives are much more likely to give to charity than liberals... but you probably haven't heard about that. It's time for us to rally together and to articulate the GOP's message in a meaningful way.

We first need to reach out a hand to what we perceive to be the other side of the aisle within the GOP... if you're a social conservative, embrace the moderates, and vice versa. So you don't believe in gay marriage. Fine. You see yourself as a progressive on social issues? Okay. What we can all agree on is that Obama is leading us in the wrong direction on many issues... and our own party has done a poor job of defending fiscal responsibilty over the last several years. THAT should be the focus for now, especially at a point in time where the deck is stacked heavily against us. The pundits are right; this is a time of restructuring for the GOP. But we have a choice to make; does the restructuring further polarize the party and enforce the negative, closed-minded stereotypes about republicans? Or is restructuring a way for the GOP to become more inclusive and find ways to come together rather than split apart?