Montana GOP wants to criminalize homosexuality

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gays_in_montana

I wish this was a joke, but its not.

Some of these Tea-Baggers and other right-wing extremists, really are a threat to our freedom and democracy. This needs to be exposed and repudiated. I suggest we email this article to all our friends and loved ones. The American people need to know about this.

[johnny karate]

Republicans: Opponents of government intrusion into our personal lives.

Unless of course the old white people who compromise the Republican party don't approve of our personal lives. Then it's all about government intrusion.

[Thunder]

Individual Liberty and Freedom at its finest.....I guess.

[Cobalt]

Did you read the whole thing, or just the title? There's some good stuff in there, like, oh, this:

The fact that it's still the official party policy more than 12 years later, despite a tidal shift in public attitudes since then and the party's own pledge of support for individual freedoms, has exasperated some GOP members.

"I looked at that and said, 'You've got to be kidding me,'" state Sen. John Brueggeman, R-Polson, said last week. "Should it get taken out? Absolutely. Does anybody think we should be arresting homosexual people? If you take that stand, you really probably shouldn't be in the Republican Party."

Of course not, because everyone knows everyone right of center is just a part of a hivemind. :rolleyes:

Montana Human Rights Network organizer Kim Abbott said the GOP platform statement does not represent the attitudes of most Montanans, and it shows that the party is out of touch with the prevalent view of the people they are supposed to represent.

"It speaks volumes to the lesbian and gay community how they are perceived by the Republican Party," Abbott said. "It would be nice if Republicans that understand that gay people are human beings would stand up and say they don't agree with that. But I don't know how likely that is."

Brueggeman suspects that the vast majority of the party believes, as he does, that the Republican party should remove statement. It's against every conservative principle for limited government and issues like this exemplify how a political party can interfere with the relationship between lawmakers and their constituents.

"I just hope it's something that's so sensitive that people don't want to touch it," he said. "Even if there wasn't a Supreme Court decision, does anyone really believe that it should be illegal?"

Yes, part of it is wrong, but, amazingly, some people are recognizing that and even admitting it! Holy ******

[mhaze]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gays_in_montana

I wish this was a joke, but its not.

Some of these Tea-Baggers and other right-wing extremists, really are a threat to our freedom and democracy. This needs to be exposed and repudiated. I suggest we email this article to all our friends and loved ones. The American people need to know about this.What exactly do the American people need to know about?

The Montana Republican party platform is here. (http://www.mtgop.org/platform.aspx) It has the statement in it which you find objectionable. The Yahoo story you linked to had that right.

Then you say this:

Some of these Tea-Baggers and other right-wing extremists, really are a threat to our freedom and democracy. This needs to be exposed and repudiated.

Is there a Tea Party connection? The Yahoo article doesn't say that. It also doesn't say that right wing extremists are a threat to our freedom and democracy.

What it says is pretty much the exact opposite.

Critics say the policy is a toothless statement, the effect of which is simply to make gays feel excluded.

Looks to me like you've made some giant leaps in your logic and improperly smeared bunches of people.

[Beerina]

Did you read the whole thing, or just the title? There's some good stuff in there, like, oh, this:

The fact that it's still the official party policy more than 12 years later, despite a tidal shift in public attitudes since then and the party's own pledge of support for individual freedoms, has exasperated some GOP members.

"I looked at that and said, 'You've got to be kidding me,'" state Sen. John Brueggeman, R-Polson, said last week. "Should it get taken out? Absolutely. Does anybody think we should be arresting homosexual people? If you take that stand, you really probably shouldn't be in the Republican Party."

Of course not, because everyone knows everyone right of center is just a part of a hivemind. :rolleyes:

Montana Human Rights Network organizer Kim Abbott said the GOP platform statement does not represent the attitudes of most Montanans, and it shows that the party is out of touch with the prevalent view of the people they are supposed to represent.

"It speaks volumes to the lesbian and gay community how they are perceived by the Republican Party," Abbott said. "It would be nice if Republicans that understand that gay people are human beings would stand up and say they don't agree with that. But I don't know how likely that is."

Brueggeman suspects that the vast majority of the party believes, as he does, that the Republican party should remove statement. It's against every conservative principle for limited government and issues like this exemplify how a political party can interfere with the relationship between lawmakers and their constituents.

"I just hope it's something that's so sensitive that people don't want to touch it," he said. "Even if there wasn't a Supreme Court decision, does anyone really believe that it should be illegal?"

Yes, part of it is wrong, but, amazingly, some people are recognizing that and even admitting it! Holy ******



Huh. How in the world did the OP leave one word out of the thread title?

Montana GOP policy: Make homosexuality illegal


...and ancient, discredited-by-them policy at that. He's right to bring it up for the purpose of embarrassing them and prompting a change. But to suggest there's some kind of current drive that's picking up steam with Republicans is really, what's the word?

[Cobalt]

Huh. How in the world did the OP leave one word out of the thread title?

Montana GOP policy: Make homosexuality illegal


...and ancient, discredited-by-them policy at that.

Well, we can't let stuff like that get in the way of hating the Right, now can we?

[Thunder]

Is there a Tea Party connection? The Yahoo article doesn't say that. It also doesn't say that right wing extremists are a threat to our freedom and democracy.

contrary to the "reporting" standards of Fox News, good news stories don't give opinions or make judgement calls.

[Neally]

As a previous post said, there is no connection indicted to the Tea Party. As far as I know the TP has no official position on homosexuality.

[elbe]

As a previous post said, there is no connection indicted to the Tea Party. As far as I know the TP has no official position on homosexuality.

I was curious so I browsed a few TP websites and they seem to be shy on having an official position on anything - other than who to vote for.

[Neally]

I was curious so I browsed a few TP websites and they seem to be shy on having an official position on anything - other than who to vote for.They were pretty clearly against Obamacare. The main thrust is smaller government and other economic issues.

[elbe]

They were pretty clearly against Obamacare. The main thrust is smaller government and other economic issues.

I went to the first three websites (relevant) that showed up in a google search: 2 were basically news feeds with links to other right wing websites, one of which had a mission statement page, and the other was ugly (there should be no excuse for poor web design for a national group, but that's just my opinion), the last page consisted donation links for three candidates and a couple links (boring, but better designed than the second one).

Honestly, they hardly make me want to care about whatever the tea party stands for. Though I'm betting if I search the websites for the regional groups I'd find more definitive stances.

[godofpie]

Montana-Where men are men, gays are jailed, and sheep are nervous.

[Howie Felterbush]

I'm sure all sixteen residents of Montana don't feel this way.

[mhaze]

They were pretty clearly against Obamacare. The main thrust is smaller government and other economic issues.

Looks like that OP didn't work....any better than that ridiculous paragraph in the MT Gop platform....

[johnny karate]

As a previous post said, there is no connection indicted to the Tea Party. As far as I know the TP has no official position on homosexuality.

I was curious so I browsed a few TP websites and they seem to be shy on having an official position on anything - other than who to vote for.

Looks like that OP didn't work....any better than that ridiculous paragraph in the MT Gop platform....

Actually, the Big Sky Tea Party president Tim Ravndal is no fan of the gays (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ha7H5KfK_nlUjXc-Wd8uAoiOizJgD9I3HGQ81), and even though he was ousted, it wasn't quite a unanimous decision. Draw your own conclusions.

Now of course spokespersons for the Big Sky Tea Party have vehemently condemned their former president's tacit threat of violence towards homosexuals - a condemnation they felt so strongly about that they immediately made it known after the threat spent a month and a half on Ravndal's Facebook page, and the Great Falls Tribune broke the story.

Oddly missing was a condemnation of Ravndal's other anti-gay Facebook post that made it quite clear he opposes them queers gettin' married.

Again, draw your own conclusions.

[Travis]

They were pretty clearly against Obamacare. The main thrust is smaller government and other economic issues.

Right, they are insane.

[KoihimeNakamura]

You know, I love how you can make inferences about D party if you're a Republican and R party if you're a Democrat. But not vice-versa.

I have a suggestion: Realize that inferences can be in fact drawn from stories no matter who you are.

[elbe]

You know, I love how you can make inferences about D party if you're a Republican and R party if you're a Democrat. But not vice-versa.

I'm not exactly following you here. D's can infer about R, and R's can infer about D, but not vice versa? How is that not already vice versa?

[quadraginta]

Just curious. If someone can't use the written, stated, presumably agreed upon document of beliefs and goals of an organization ... its platform, in other words ... as one tool to form a judgment about that organization then why bother having it? What can it be used for?

If all that is required for such a document to be negated is for someone who claims to be a member of that organization to say somewhere, "Oh we don't really mean that." then there really isn't much point in having a platform, or a mission statement, or anything else in the first place. Even an organization, when it comes right down to it.

If no one is willing to take responsibility for the positions an organization claims, and any statement which garners any noticeable criticism can be dismissed with a little bit of hand-waving by anyone who feels like it then the organization is a farce.

[Just thinking]

I'm not exactly following you here. D's can infer about R, and R's can infer about D, but not vice versa? How is that not already vice versa?

I believe the inference is D's can't infer about D's and R's can't infer about R's. OK, not exactly a Vice-versa, more like a converse (contrapositive?), but I think that's the point.

[Just thinking]

... But to suggest there's some kind of current drive that's picking up steam with Republicans is really, what's the word?

Disingenuous?

;)

[Ladewig]

I have to agree with Cobalt and Mhaze. One line in a platform statement is not the same as introducing bills or passing ordinances.



............................................

ETA

Huh. How in the world did the OP leave one word out of the thread title?

Montana GOP policy: Make homosexuality illegal

Even that is misleading. It should say

Montana GOP policy: Retain current laws concerning homosexuality

or to put an even finer point on it.


Disputed Montana GOP policy: Retain current laws concerning homosexuality

[Neally]

Right, they are insane.Okay, I guess that puts a huge percentage of the population in the insane category, even if they don't identify with the TP.
Obamacare poll: www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8093.cfm
Smaller Government Poll: http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/19/poll-most-americans-want-small


Again, draw your own conclusions.
I conclude that they don't want leaders in the party that advocate violence against homosexuals and they don't have a platform policy on other gay rights issues.

[Travis]

Okay, I guess that puts a huge percentage of the population in the insane category, even if they don't identify with the TP.
Obamacare poll: www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8093.cfm (http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8093.cfm)
Smaller Government Poll: http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/19/poll-most-americans-want-small

I guess it does. I never had much hope for humanity anyways.

[Brainster]

Oddly missing was a condemnation of Ravndal's other anti-gay Facebook post that made it quite clear he opposes them queers gettin' married.

Damn! The guy sounds just as bad as Barack Obama!

[ponderingturtle]

They were pretty clearly against Obamacare. The main thrust is smaller government and other economic issues.

And proudly fighting for their own pork. See their stance against medicare cuts or the cuts to NASA, at least the local Tea parties were against those, they really wanted the government to keep up make work aerospace jobs on the public dime.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Neally: Argument to the bandwagon is an interesting fallacy.

elbe: I mean to say that when a Democrat attempts to make an inference based on what they perceive (although thinking on it, the OP is Thunder..) of Republican policy, they get roundly criticized. The reverse happens pretty frequently as well, so it's.. one of those things I tend to agree with dualdb about - both sides are going to do this.

[mhaze]

I take offense to the language of the OP:

Some of these Tea-Baggers and other right-wing extremists, really are a threat to our freedom and democracy.

That being NOT a product of the link referenced in any sense whatsoever.

So it's a blatant lie.

Be my guest and produce facts and evidence on which these threats exist to your freedom and your democracy exist. Just don't lie about it or make it up out of whole clothe.

[Unabogie]

Be my guest and produce facts and evidence on which these threats exist to your freedom and your democracy exist. Just don't lie about it or make it up out of whole clothe.

I agree. Like making up a story that TPM is funded by George Soros.

[johnny karate]

I conclude that they don't want leaders in the party that advocate violence against homosexuals...

Well, that seems to be a topic of debate among them (http://helenair.com/news/article_38a7134c-bfca-11df-8ce0-001cc4c002e0.html):
At the meeting last week, many members protested the quick banishment of Ravndal and threatened to leave the group if the board did not reconsider its action.


... and they don't have a platform policy on other gay rights issues.

Right, no "platform policy". :rolleyes:

Damn! The guy sounds just as bad as Barack Obama!

Wait... Obama has expressed a lack of support for gay marriage? I had no idea. I suppose I'd better change my opinion on this issue then, because I automatically agree with everything Barack Obama says.

[The Fool]

They should just do what we did when a friend announced he was gay. We just took him to a lot of football games and forced him to drink beer. He's fully recovered now.....except for....well, you know....

[varwoche]

I take offense to the language of the OP:

Some of these Tea-Baggers and other right-wing extremists, really are a threat to our freedom and democracy. Here, is this better...? Some of these Tea-Baggers and other right-wing extremists republicans really are a threat to our freedom and democracy.

[nchammer326]

By the way, Bowen Greenwood (the GOP executive supporting this policy) has already made clear his relationship/thoughts regarding the Tea Party on his website:

http://www.bowengreenwood.com/2010/05/16/tea-parties-my-perspective/

What I want to do today is present my own personal experience with the Tea Party here in the Helena area. I am not a member. I have never once been to one of their organizational meetings. I’ve been to two of their rallies, met a large number of members while out on the campaign trail, and know a few of the members from before I ran for office.

At the very end:

In my opinion, the thing that most directly led to the tea parties was not the election of Barack Obama but the years of a Republican Party that was more concerned with winning than with our principles. We were happy to watch George Bush spend, spend, spend as long as he kept an R on the White House.

I say that as one of the guilty parties. I certainly spent my time saying, “Yeah, sure, that’s a morally right idea, but it’s not realistic.” I learned my lesson. Now, I hope, the state and the country will learn too. The tea party people are great teachers.

[thaiboxerken]

Well, we can't let stuff like that get in the way of hating the Right, now can we?
correct, they don't want to criminalize it. Just ban gay marriage. They only hate gay people a little bit, not alot.

[Neally]

Neally: Argument to the bandwagon is an interesting fallacy.

I'm glad you find it interesting. Do explain why you think the majority of people are insane for not wanting Obamacare and smaller government.

[ZirconBlue]

I was curious so I browsed a few TP websites and they seem to be shy on having an official position on anything - other than who to vote for.

They are, in fact, deliberately avoiding "social issues" as much as possible. Their unifying factor if fiscal conservatism, and they don't want to alienate anyone by taking a stand on other issues.

[TragicMonkey]

correct, they don't want to criminalize it. Just ban gay marriage. They only hate gay people a little bit, not alot.

I think it's either they hate gay people for real, or they just want to look like they hate gay people in order to be popular with the people who actually do hate gay people. Either way, not really admirable.

[Ladewig]

correct, they don't want to criminalize it. Just ban gay marriage.

No. The plank in the Montana state party platform actually calls for criminalizing homosexual acts

The party adopted an official platform in June that keeps a long-held position in support of making homosexual acts illegal, a policy adopted after the Montana Supreme Court struck down such laws in 1997

[Ladewig]

Follow up on story

http://www.kxlh.com/news/montana-gop-policy-keep-homosexual-acts-illegal/

Republican Senator John Brueggeman of Polson said on Sunday that his party's stance to keep homosexuality illegal couldn't be more un-American.

[some Godwin stuff removed]

He did some digging in the books and he says he found Montana law still "prohibits homosexual activity."

He told us he plans to put in a bill on Monday to have that language removed from Montana law.

Removing laws that were declared unconstitutional. I like it. A tip of the hat to the state senator.

[Newtons Bit]

They should just do what we did when a friend announced he was gay. We just took him to a lot of football games and forced him to drink beer. He's fully recovered now.....except for....well, you know....

I think it's okay just so long as he doesn't dress fashionably.

[dudalb]

Huh. How in the world did the OP leave one word out of the thread title?

Montana GOP policy: Make homosexuality illegal


...and ancient, discredited-by-them policy at that. He's right to bring it up for the purpose of embarrassing them and prompting a change. But to suggest there's some kind of current drive that's picking up steam with Republicans is really, what's the word?

THing is, it should be removed from the platform. Why give your opponent a club with which to beat you?

[dudalb]

They are, in fact, deliberately avoiding "social issues" as much as possible. Their unifying factor if fiscal conservatism, and they don't want to alienate anyone by taking a stand on other issues.

That might be changing, given the rise of Beck and the recent increase in religiousity by a lot of Tea Baggers.