" We believe homosexuality is not normal and should not be established as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle either in public education or in public policy. We do not believe public schools should be used to teach children that homosexuality is normal, and we do not believe that taxpayers should fund benefit plans for unmarried partners. We oppose special treatment by law based on nothing other than homosexual behavior or identity. We oppose actions, such as “marriage” or the adoption of children by same-sex couples, which attempt to legitimize and normalize homosexual relationships. We support the Defense of Marriage Act and will support a constitutional amendment to ensure that marriage is limited to the union of one man and one woman. We commend private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, which defend moral decency and freedom according to their own well-established traditions and beliefs."
-from the 2004 platform of the North Carolina GOP.
Thanks to Jazz at Running Scared for the tip.
Posted by Dennis at October 28, 2004 11:34 PMDorsano,
I have been with you all along. Work has picked up and will not slow down until January. In regards to my political future, I still have people who approach and ask me to run again in two years. At this time I can not commit to running or else I have to start complying with FEC regulations which I would prefer not to do. However, there is no harm in asking people what is important to them.
The struggle must continue and we can not give up.
Everyone, Take Care
OT, and so please excuse me in advance.
However, I wanted to tell you that I came across your blog while looking for information about Bush and Biblical quotes for some work on intertextuality.
It is a great consolation for me to read voices of moderation from the republican side, since I feel as though I have been under continuous assault from the radical right for years. Fwiw, I'm not homosexual or black. I'm a mother of two who is astonished by the way in which the religious right has hijacked the republican party and torn our nation asunder with its ideological extremism.
As you certainly realize, as the radical right's rhetoric has become more antagonistic, people like me, who once felt it was possible to have bipartisan leadership, have begun to feel that such bipartisanship is not possible.
I do feel it is impossible with the Bush faction.
Their rhetoric and actions serve to push me further to the left and to a frame of mind in which I am no longer willing to seek compromise either.
However, to know there are people like you who are working to heal rather than hurt gives me hope for our nation.
Best wishes to you.
Posted by: just another american at October 30, 2004 03:26 PMThis is just the beginning
Bob - I'm glad to see you're still here. Are you planning take on Musgrave again?
I'll answer for you -- yes I am.
This is just the beginning. A lot can be accomplished in two years!! Restart the Faust campaign NOW.
In Spring, start going door to door and take a poll of your district. What changes would you like to see in Washington?
Memorize their names.
Posted by: dorsano at October 30, 2004 03:23 AMThis is just the beginning. The religous right, which is attempting to control the Republican Party, will not stop until they have established a government here that supports and enforces their beliefs. Sound like the Taliban?
The sad part is they will accomplish their mission because most Americans do not take an active part in voting or running for office. This leaves the "right" people to vote for the "right" candidate.
I agree with DGCooper and I'd add for myself that as far as raising children goes ...
my feeling is that there are a great many more children in the world that need loving parents, than there are loving couples to care for them.
And if gay couples, in committed, loving relationships can help carry some of the load,
we'll all be blessed, in some measure, for them doing so.
Posted by: dorsano at October 29, 2004 08:22 PMYou made the point much better than I did.
Thanks for that.
Posted by: mike at October 29, 2004 08:02 PMI apparently wrote that poorly.
-----------------------
Subsititute "they" with "The North Carolina GOP"
They want it both ways. Either Homosexuality is a choice that a person makes, which means they are just like everyone else, and arent entitled to acknowledgement of any different kind of status OR they are born that way, and with such a state shouldnt be capable of handling the responsibilities of a "normal" person, such as adoption, teaching, etc.
------------------------
In reading it over though, I still didnt make my point. Please ignore that one and I will try to be coherent next time.
Posted by: mike at October 29, 2004 08:01 PMWhat Mike's saying ...
I don't want to put words in Mike's mouth but what I hear him saying is that there are two "types" of arguments people make against gays that stem from one or the other of these premises.
To those who believe gayness is not a choice, but God given - too bad for gays - you can't be trusted with things like raising children just like a blind man can't be trusted to drive a car.
The premise that underlies both class of arguments is that gayness (by choice or by God) excludes them in some measure from the rest of us.
Mike's not making any of these arguments against gays - he merely classifying arguments he's heard.
------------
How'd I do Mike?
Posted by: dorsano at October 29, 2004 07:58 PMWith victory we need to choose who to go to war with next.
No that Bush has received a clear endorsement of preemptive strikes we need to keep going. Syria would put us toe to toe with the real problem in the Middle East. France might not stand against us if we lobbed a few cruse missiles.
Posted by: George Rasmussen at October 29, 2004 05:37 PMSince Dennis linked to my post for this, I'll commment. I don't think schools should "teach homosexuality" just as I don't think they should teach bisexuality or heterosexuality. What I think they SHOULD teach is tolerance and an understanding that people come in all shapes, colors, and styles. Having rainbow coallition groups and GLAD chapters in high schools doesn't "endorse" one race, religion, or sexuality. It teaches that everybody in America can be themselves. I don't think it neccesarily even needs to be part of the school curriculum. That should be for college prep studies. I do think schools should promote the organization and support of groups that promote tolerance. It's not that hard of a concept.
Posted by: Jazz Shaw at October 29, 2004 04:20 PMWhile I agree with some, well, mainly one thing:
"We do not believe public schools should be used to teach children that homosexuality is normal."
I dont think its normal either, but neither is skiing or golfing, which I am no fan of. Ultimately its a persons choice to do whatever they want with their individual life. I dont believe in telling someone what is right and wrong in my eyes, because that just isnt right, no one is 100% right about anything. But I do believe in some order. If not, heck we'll be marrying our pets and saying this is normal as well. But even straight marriages arent normal either. I am conservative when it comes to this the quote I mention above because this is something kids can decide when they get older for whatever reason.
But when 2 people have a unity & love, that needs to be respected in all that it is. Whether for benefits, hospitals, or anything. If 2 people buy a house together and they're both on the title, both make the payments, I feel they should be entitled to the same tax break or any benefit that 2 married straight people would have. Whats the difference?
As far as labeling marriage as between a man and a woman, Im for it. Because it works, it produces offsprings. But there needs to be something for gay unions in order to have the same benefits that a married couple would. I dont see why not.
maybe this is the wrong place for this post, but I wanted to share a view of fellow Republicans who are voting for Kerry.
Posted by: DGCopper at October 29, 2004 02:47 PMmike's comments usually make little sense, but I'm having trouble figuring this one out at all.
If being "normal" is what he thinks is necessary to have the same rights as everyone else, then very few people would have any rights at all. Are people with higher than "normal" IQ's unfit to teach? If you have a higher than "normal" salary, are you unfit to adopt? If someone who is gay has the means to raise a child, and a degree in education, why should they be concidered unfit for adopting a child or teaching?
As far as being "entitled to acknowledgement of any different kind of status", I think that's what they are asking for, the same status as everyone else. The government didn't tell me who I could marry, why should they be in a "different status", and have to marry according to the government's whims?
Posted by: William Bollinger at October 29, 2004 01:06 PMMike, homosexuality is an innate characteristic. Saying gays shouldn't be able to adopt is as sensible saying that left-handers, red-heads or blue-eyed folks shouldn't adopt. But maybe we need to protect kids from the "left-handed lifestyle."
Posted by: Brian at October 29, 2004 10:26 AMI'm sorry to say I wish we'd let the South secede when they tried. Theocracy is strong enough in this country even without them.
Posted by: Brian at October 29, 2004 10:23 AMdorsano -
I don't believe that person has a good chance of going to hell. They're attempting to create it here, right now.
Posted by: Mark Kittel at October 29, 2004 08:41 AMThey want it both ways. Either Homosexuality is a choice that a person makes, which means they are just like everyone else, and arent entitled to acknowledgement of any different kind of status OR they are born that way, and with such a state shouldnt be capable of handling the responsibilities of a "normal" person, such as adoption, teaching, etc.
Posted by: mike at October 29, 2004 05:22 AMI believe who ever wrote that platform has a good chance of going to hell.
Posted by: dorsano at October 29, 2004 12:07 AM