Texas GOP platform

[FinalEnigma]

The Texas GOP has put forth a 2010 party platform that includes the following planks:

* Gay people shouldn't have custody of children.
* Issuing a marriage license or performing a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple should be punishable by jail time.
* 19th-century Texas statutes outlawing sex between men should be restored.
* Homosexuality "tears at the fabric of society."

1. "We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to...custody of children by homosexuals..." [sic]
2. "We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such."
3. "We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy. "

I got this information in an email, since I'm signed up at a human rights website that sends petitions to politicians. (site here: http://bit.ly/9qTm2t)

The GOP platform wishes to essentially make homosexuality itself illegal. they wish to remove job protections so that you can be fired for simply being gay, they wish to make it illegal for homosexuals to have custody of children, they wish to reinstate the laws against homosexual sex, and they wish to make it a felony to issue a marriage license to, or to perform a marriage ceremony for, two people of the same gender.

The full platform can be found here: http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/site/R?i ... WBbT96orKw..

What do you think, are these legal steps appropriate and necessary, or utterly insane?

I'm strongly against every one of these steps.

[chris_brown207]

So then do you expect us to believe that you have never had sex for any other reason besides procreation???

I don't that the sex life of any user on here should be talked about on here. This isn't a conversion between two good friends, its a discussion between two acquintainces on an internet forum. But I'd ask you to look to my response to goat for an answer.

No problem, and I do agree with your response to goat.

We just have to be careful when we broach the subject of what goes on in other people's bedroom's, because we leave the door open for what goes on in ours to be broached as well.

[WinePusher]

And you don't feel providing for the health of it's citizens takes care of a society just as much as public roadways and public schooling?

Heres what I have always contended. Before Obamacare, anybody could get care. We have emergency rooms, we have doctors who abid by the hypocratic oath, this isn't some third world country that lets its citizens die in the streets. People that do nt hae money but need care will get care. Obamacare is a government grab for power, as indicated by the fact that the government is forcing its citizens to buy something.

You mean like public schooling?

Taxes accumlated in general go to public schools, and we've seen how well these schools perform

I wonder if winepusher would have felt the same way had it been a republican president who was the one pushing health care (since this originated as a republican platform).

I would be appauled if someone who claims to be a republica promoted such a thing. This is the antithesis of every the republican party and the conservative movement stands for. If a republican president proposed this, I would feel betrayed.

I do not contend to know of any such projects you mentioned, but I do contend that you fully support the cutting of government programs as long as it is not something you like or support.

Well, all I mentioned are in the stimulus package of 2009, a prime example of government waste.

Didn't say you did, I did mention that there were others in the quote, my apologies if you thought this was directed at you solely.

Oh, ok. Thank for your apologizes.

Bravo! Alas, common ground! (I am almost hesitant to ask your feelings about the teachings of Intelligent Design in public schools?)

Yes, I am a supporter of evolution and it being taught in schools, literal creationism as no place in science texts.

I would be happy to, if there is more interest then just you and me (that would get a little lame after a while).

lol, true true.......well, good day!

[chris_brown207]

Heres what I have always contended. Before Obamacare, anybody could get care. We have emergency rooms, we have doctors who abid by the hypocratic oath, this isn't some third world country that lets its citizens die in the streets. People that do nt hae money but need care will get care. Obamacare is a government grab for power, as indicated by the fact that the government is forcing its citizens to buy something.

I would agree with you to a point - we do have one of the (7th) best health care systems in the world, and this health care IS available to any and every citizen - just like a Ferrari is available to any and every citizen. (Although, if you have pre-existing conditions, but still had the money, you wouldn't be rejected from buying the Ferrari)

Health care reform (I don't think anyone calls it Obamacare except those who oppose it) seeks to make it not just available, but affordable to the average citizen. The difference in some basic health care parameters (such as infant mortality, and life span) between the rich and the poor is so appalling as to be almost representative of some third world nations.

I believe that, along with public education and public roadways, the government does have some responsibility to provide for and ensure that the basic health needs of its citizens are being met.

Taxes accumlated in general go to public schools, and we've seen how well these schools perform

True. I used to be a high school teacher, and I will be the first to admit that public education can leave a lot to be desired (especially in low income neighborhoods where property taxes pay for a lot less - but that is another thread...), and that is why we have private schooling.

However, in the health care forum, there are plenty of "private schools" while there is no "public school" equivalent.

I would be appauled if someone who claims to be a republica promoted such a thing. This is the antithesis of every the republican party and the conservative movement stands for. If a republican president proposed this, I would feel betrayed.

This policy originated as an election platform for FDR. And Republicans as recent as presidential candidate Mitt Romney not only supported, but passed in their precincts such policies.

I do not contend to know of any such projects you mentioned, but I do contend that you fully support the cutting of government programs as long as it is not something you like or support.

Well, all I mentioned are in the stimulus package of 2009, a prime example of government waste.

You speak of pork barrel spending. I agree with you that these earmarks are a blight on otherwise honorable and productive legislation. (Not that I am saying that the stimulus package is that - I was a proponent of a more laissez faire approach to the housing and credit crash, but I can fault neither party for such packages as both partook in them).

Unfortunately, there is no party that is without skeletons in their closet on the matter of earmark spending. And while you take exception to certain Democrats (of which I have no special regard for) use of them, are you not overlooking the Republicans doing the same? (If you are truly unaware of such occurring, I could provide a multitude of examples)

Yes, I am a supporter of evolution and it being taught in schools, literal creationism as no place in science texts.

YES! We truly do see eye to eye on this matter. Sometimes I let my own feelings color my perception of people as a whole. Thank you for providing me with a fresh outlook in debating with people on this site.

[Guest]

The Texas GOP has put forth a 2010 party platform that includes the following planks:

* Gay people shouldn't have custody of children.
* Issuing a marriage license or performing a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple should be punishable by jail time.
* 19th-century Texas statutes outlawing sex between men should be restored.
* Homosexuality "tears at the fabric of society."

1. "We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to...custody of children by homosexuals..." [sic]
2. "We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such."
3. "We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy. "

I got this information in an email, since I'm signed up at a human rights website that sends petitions to politicians. (site here: http://bit.ly/9qTm2t)

The GOP platform wishes to essentially make homosexuality itself illegal. they wish to remove job protections so that you can be fired for simply being gay, they wish to make it illegal for homosexuals to have custody of children, they wish to reinstate the laws against homosexual sex, and they wish to make it a felony to issue a marriage license to, or to perform a marriage ceremony for, two people of the same gender.

The full platform can be found here: http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/site/R?i ... WBbT96orKw..

What do you think, are these legal steps appropriate and necessary, or utterly insane?

I'm strongly against every one of these steps.

It's Texas. Its pretty right-wing for the Republican Party, so I dont see the national RNC picking any of it up. Of the four points, the first one is vague to me, is it they should not "have" custody (like even a natural child) or that they should not adopt? The second point should be instated IF the law is already on the books that they should not perform such marriages. The alternative would be to rescind the law. The third one is up to Texas. The fourth one I am not sure about. Has to be explained more.

[BlackCat13]

The Texas GOP has put forth a 2010 party platform that includes the following planks:

* Gay people shouldn't have custody of children.
* Issuing a marriage license or performing a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple should be punishable by jail time.
* 19th-century Texas statutes outlawing sex between men should be restored.
* Homosexuality "tears at the fabric of society."

1. "We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to...custody of children by homosexuals..." [sic]
2. "We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such."
3. "We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy. "

I got this information in an email, since I'm signed up at a human rights website that sends petitions to politicians. (site here: http://bit.ly/9qTm2t)

The GOP platform wishes to essentially make homosexuality itself illegal. they wish to remove job protections so that you can be fired for simply being gay, they wish to make it illegal for homosexuals to have custody of children, they wish to reinstate the laws against homosexual sex, and they wish to make it a felony to issue a marriage license to, or to perform a marriage ceremony for, two people of the same gender.

The full platform can be found here: http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/site/R?i ... WBbT96orKw..

What do you think, are these legal steps appropriate and necessary, or utterly insane?

I'm strongly against every one of these steps.

It's Texas. Its pretty right-wing for the Republican Party, so I dont see the national RNC picking any of it up. Of the four points, the first one is vague to me, is it they should not "have" custody (like even a natural child) or that they should not adopt? The second point should be instated IF the law is already on the books that they should not perform such marriages. The alternative would be to rescind the law. The third one is up to Texas. The fourth one I am not sure about. Has to be explained more.

The 3rd one, "19th-century Texas statutes outlawing sex between men should be restored", is not up to Texas, courtesy of Lawrence vs. Texas which was previously mentioned in this thread, where the Supreme Court ruled that such laws were unconstitutional. Therefore, to pass this law, they would have to repeal a Supreme Court ruling, and I'll be honest, I don't know how hard that is, but I would think not incredibly easy.

[BlackCat13]

Well, I would say that you are wrong. Homosexual sex can and does provide social bonding between two people who love each other. THe same that quite a lot of heterosexual sex does.

Thats a good argument, homosexual sex could possibly lead to a deeper relationship between the two.

Could possibly? It wouldn't any less than heterosexual sex between two loving partners would. Obviously, on both teams you will have people who have sex just to have sex, but it seems kind of condescending to assume that it just 'could possibly' deepen a relationship. If someone said heterosexual sex could deepen the relationship between two partners, would you have said the same? Gay relationships, just like straight ones, can be based on love and emotion, or not.

[FinalEnigma]

You know, heterosexual sex resulting in unwanted or unplanned pregnancies is the reason why abortion rates are so high.

I believe that is promiscuos heterosexual sex, is it not? Settled married couples who wish to have sex, but not have children make plans in advance.

I don't quite think it works that way. the vast majority of people trust their birth control to work and don't bother making plans just in case - especially the young, who are the ones who have the most abortions.

Do other animals engage in sex for recreational purposes?

Yes, Bonobos, for one.

Heres what I have always contended. Before Obamacare, anybody could get care. We have emergency rooms, we have doctors who abid by the hypocratic oath, this isn't some third world country that lets its citizens die in the streets. People that do nt hae money but need care will get care. Obamacare is a government grab for power, as indicated by the fact that the government is forcing its citizens to buy something.

the health system isn't quite as good as you seem to think it is. talk to any health care professional. virtually all of them will tell you that we need reform - even if they do object to the way it is being done. As it is, specialists on call tot he ER will perform needless procedures just because a patient has good insurance and tey can get lots of money, and will bitch, moan, and do their best to avoid giving proper care to those who don't have insurance. this is clearly wrong.

[Guest]

The 3rd one, "19th-century Texas statutes outlawing sex between men should be restored", is not up to Texas, courtesy of Lawrence vs. Texas which was previously mentioned in this thread, where the Supreme Court ruled that such laws were unconstitutional. Therefore, to pass this law, they would have to repeal a Supreme Court ruling, and I'll be honest, I don't know how hard that is, but I would think not incredibly easy.

Repealing a SC ruling depends on the make up of the court at the time a repeal makes it to them. Right now, I would say it would be unlikely. I disagree, though, with the SC ruling--regardless of whether it was pro or con--because its another example of the Fed overstepping into states rights. IMHO

[DeBunkem]

The Texas School Book Depository was where Lee Harvey Oswald got access for his sniper's nest.

[chris_brown207]

The 3rd one, "19th-century Texas statutes outlawing sex between men should be restored", is not up to Texas, courtesy of Lawrence vs. Texas which was previously mentioned in this thread, where the Supreme Court ruled that such laws were unconstitutional. Therefore, to pass this law, they would have to repeal a Supreme Court ruling, and I'll be honest, I don't know how hard that is, but I would think not incredibly easy.

Repealing a SC ruling depends on the make up of the court at the time a repeal makes it to them. Right now, I would say it would be unlikely. I disagree, though, with the SC ruling--regardless of whether it was pro or con--because its another example of the Fed overstepping into states rights. IMHO

I think I would have to disagree on your opinion that the SC stepped on states rights when they made this decision. The Federal governments responsibility is to ensure the right of each of its citizens to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that having the freedom to have healthy, adult, consensual, loving relationships ties directly into all three of those tenants.