Evangelicals: Keep gay issues out of immigration

[chaotus]

Wait, what? Like it seriously wouldn't get passed anyway? One of the reasons the Republicans got clobbered, badly, in the last election was due to their immigration silliness. That's why so many did an about face and now support it. Which is what is so funny about the AP story. Whether the evangelicals like it or not doesn't actually matter. They are not why immigration reform is now being taken seriously. They're really just pissing into the wind, so to speak, and only getting themselves wet.

You should want to know whether your representative voted for gay rights or not, without them being able to push accountability on other topics as well. I for one truly want to know exactly which of our old aging lifers is going to vote no. Why give them out through the immigration route? "I had to vote for it, it was part of the greater good...."

[Elegiac]

You should want to know whether your representative voted for gay rights or not, without them being able to push accountability on other topics as well. I for one truly want to know exactly which of our old aging lifers is going to vote no. Why give them out through the immigration route? "I had to vote for it, it was part of the greater good...."

In this situation the product is more important than the process.

[chaotus]

Doing good for selfish reasons is perfectly acceptable.

The fact of the matter is that it's necessary anyway, given the increasing number of countries that have same-sex marriage.

Unfortunately I am selfish as well. I'd rather have accountability for our representatives then get same sex legislation pushed through quicker and keep their sorry hides in office.

[Chrysia]

You should want to know whether your representative voted for gay rights or not, without them being able to push accountability on other topics as well. I for one truly want to know exactly which of our old aging lifers is going to vote no. Why give them out through the immigration route? "I had to vote for it, it was part of the greater good...."

It's actually unlikely to pass, anyway, if even some of the Republican amendments get attached.

They're doing everything they can to gut the whole bill.

[Elegiac]

Unfortunately I am selfish as well. I'd rather have accountability for our representatives then get same sex legislation pushed through quicker and keep their sorry hides in office.

Do me a favor and don't vote, then.

---------- Post added 2013-05-08 at 01:12 PM ----------

It's actually unlikely to pass, anyway, if even some of the Republican amendments get attached.

They're doing everything they can to gut the whole bill.

Under the present environment a "Little American Flags for Orphans" act would not pass if Obama proposed it.

[chaotus]

Do me a favor and don't vote, then.

---------- Post added 2013-05-08 at 01:12 PM ----------



Under the present environment a "Little American Flags for Orphans" act would not pass if Obama proposed it.

Too bad, we both see a different route to the same goal. We both vote. See which route gets us there. Awesome system we have ain't it.

[Slybak]

And why is this an issue?

Because if demographics are destiny in politics, the GOP is facing political death. At least on the national level. If demographic changes keep their current place, the GOP will become less competitive in states where those changes are most dramatic; North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia, Texas, etc. And once the Republicans lose Texas, they won't have the Presidency again. They need to be able to legitimately claim that they represent the interests of growing Asian-American and Latino-American constituencies, so that they won't continue to lose those constituencies by double digits. The days when you can win the Presidency with 70% of the white vote are over.

But they also have to keep the constituencies they have, which includes xenophobes and (relevant to this topic) homophobes. Prior to this amendment, its simply been a battle between the xenophobes and the political realists, and the shock of the 2012 election was sufficient enough for the realists to win that fight. But add in the homophobes? Evangelical groups were somewhat supportive of immigration reform, because Latino-Americans are the largest growing evangelical community (and the money in that collection plate has to come from somewhere), but these groups hate gay people more than they love money.

[Dezerte]

Hello person who believes church and state are truly separate.

Hello I wish they truly were.

[Garnier Fructis]

This shit is why I stopped being Christian.

[SirRobin]

I don't see the Republicans being in a lose-lose situation here. They don't have to worry about losing their "base" because that base has no where else to go. They will vote Republican no matter what. You can go "Hike the Appalachian Trail," boning a foreigner, who is a liberal-media journalist, while married, using taxpayer dollars to do it, and they will still vote for you.

Now specific Republicans have to worry about losing their jobs to other Republicans. In primaries. But the folks already voting for them will keep voting for them just about no matter what they do.

[Elegiac]

I don't see the Republicans being in a lose-lose situation here. They don't have to worry about losing their "base" because that base has no where else to go. They will vote Republican no matter what. You can go "Hike the Appalachian Trail," boning a foreigner, who is a liberal-media journalist, while married, using taxpayer dollars to do it, and they will still vote for you.

Now specific Republicans have to worry about losing their jobs to other Republicans. In primaries. But the folks already voting for them will keep voting for them just about no matter what they do.

That base is only getting smaller, hence why it's called a demographic advantage.

[Masark]

That base is only getting smaller, hence why it's called a demographic advantage.

Sure, but its fairly concentrated, so gerrymandering will allow you to maintain things whist it shrinks.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Pretty much this, plus insert my usual comment about gay issues not belonging anywhere except in the closet, much less politics.

As soon as married people stop having legal rights, we can take gay rights out of politics.

[Noomz]

Even though the concept is sound, it should still be a separate bill. I'm not keen on the piggy backing of agendas. While I dislike the reasons the man has for pulling his support, I fully support his stance against piggy backing one agenda through another. It's sneaky and foul.

Sneaky and foul to want gay rights?
That's scary.

You know, they hide worse things together in bills that you never get to hear about. It's done all the time in order to get something unpopular passed.

---------- Post added 2013-05-08 at 10:34 PM ----------

As soon as married people stop having legal rights, we can take gay rights out of politics.

Best thing I've read on this forum in a while.

[gpherder]

Why is religious leaders even chiming in on U.S politics They have no place in anything political in the U.S.

The last time I checked, religious leaders have the right to free speech, and the same right as (for example) Oprah to encourage their followers to do what they tell them.

That being said, it's an indictment on the religious right that they honestly believe they can dictate what people choose to do in their bedrooms. I support, 100%, their right to believe gay marriage (or even homosexuality in general) is wrong. That right goes as far as letting them spout off whatever idiotic notions come to their heads, and even benign rabble-rousing. It does not, however, extend to actually controlling what people are allowed to do.

Considering 11 states currently allow gay marriage, I think it's time for them to hang up their hat on this one. Keep it behind the pulpit and let people live their lives how they choose.

[Polarthief]

Hello, separation of church and state, where are you?

Obviously not around because most states still oppose gay rights .-.

In fact, I think only ~20% of states is for/okay with it.

[Xyonai]

It's actually unlikely to pass, anyway, if even some of the Republican amendments get attached.

They're doing everything they can to gut the whole bill.

Reading the names that it drops at the end of each amendment, and holy crap that Grassly fellow is a tool.

[Puck]

So now Religious people are attacking LGBT people in issues besides marriage? Color me surprised.

[Korgoth]

Obviously not around because most states still oppose gay rights .-.

In fact, I think only ~20% of states is for/okay with it.

I wonder if every state voted on it in Nov which states would approve. It was only a few years ago that CA voted it down.

[Puck]

I wonder if every state voted on it in Nov which states would approve. It was only a few years ago that CA voted it down.

CA voted it down due to heavy manipulation.