Today’s Des Moines Register has again returned to Chuck Hurley’s fight to preserve the traditional concept of marriage from disintegration in the moral vacuum of liberal hedonism.
Today’s article focuses on the alliance between the inner city black minister Rev. Keith Ratliff, and his Maple Street Baptist Church, and Chuck and the Iowa Family Policy Council.
The Hurley/Ratliff alliance on what is perhaps the most significant social question before Iowa’s voters proves a couple of important theories we have advanced here at TRS about the benefits of openly and aggressively pursuing protection of marriage as a cornerstone of the Iowa GOP agenda.
The first, and more short term benefit is the creation of a bright line issue between Republicans and Democrats in which a significant majority of black voters side with us. Leadership, and Chuck Hurley is providing an example of just such leadership, is reaching out and persuading the reluctant audience to agree. Intellectual and ideological marketing, so to speak.
The second, and more long term benefit is the opportunity it provides the GOP to dismantle part of the emotional resistance the black voter has to the GOP agenda. We can build on agreement about homosexual marriage with agreement about other moral/social issues. We here are guessing that Rev. Ratliff is concerned about illegitimacy and economic failure in black families-so is the GOP.
Agreement on one issue at least opens the door to discussions of other issues. We forego this opportunity at our own great peril.
Today’s article focuses on the alliance between the inner city black minister Rev. Keith Ratliff, and his Maple Street Baptist Church, and Chuck and the Iowa Family Policy Council.
The Hurley/Ratliff alliance on what is perhaps the most significant social question before Iowa’s voters proves a couple of important theories we have advanced here at TRS about the benefits of openly and aggressively pursuing protection of marriage as a cornerstone of the Iowa GOP agenda.
The first, and more short term benefit is the creation of a bright line issue between Republicans and Democrats in which a significant majority of black voters side with us. Leadership, and Chuck Hurley is providing an example of just such leadership, is reaching out and persuading the reluctant audience to agree. Intellectual and ideological marketing, so to speak.
The second, and more long term benefit is the opportunity it provides the GOP to dismantle part of the emotional resistance the black voter has to the GOP agenda. We can build on agreement about homosexual marriage with agreement about other moral/social issues. We here are guessing that Rev. Ratliff is concerned about illegitimacy and economic failure in black families-so is the GOP.
Agreement on one issue at least opens the door to discussions of other issues. We forego this opportunity at our own great peril.
32 comments:
GOP taking this issue as one of their major themes proves that Lincoln Chafee was right when he said that old Southern Democrats have taken over his party.
Sporer - You have to realize that in the long term you are on the losing side on this issue. Freedom of this sort has been marching in the opposite direction from you from the beginning of time. And if you don't believe that, read a poll about youth attitudes on this, or talk to some young people.
Also, repeat of my question from the previous thread:
Once and for all, could someone tell me what the threat from homosexual marriage is? If homosexual marriage is legalized, how exactly will it affect your union with your lovely wife? How exactly would the legalization affect our country?
Dear Art the layman and RF
Thanks for taking the argument to Ted. For way too long The comment were filled with The ditto heads.
Ghost of Gerald Ford and real ted Sphincter GOP
RF says: Once and for all, could someone tell me what the threat from homosexual marriage is? If homosexual marriage is legalized, how exactly will it affect your union with your lovely wife? How exactly would the legalization affect our country?
Homo marriage will not necesarily affect my marriage, but it will affect generations to come. It will give children an unhealthy sense of what parents are; instead of a mother and a father, they'll get a lop-sided view of life from having two dads or two moms. Children need both a mom and a dad in a loving family to thrive.
The move to homo marriage is all about money, benefits, etc. Let's admit it, folks. You want the same benefits as your "partner" has and have the company and the government pick up the tab.
Finally, some of us don't want to stand around and see our country slip toward Sodom any further. We are willing to put our foots down and say enough is enough. That's why Chuck Hurley and Rev. Ratliff are out there on the front lines.
bgunzy:
Your analysis is a little slanted. Experts would likely tell you that children need a nurturer and a disciplinarian. Historically, moms have been one and dads the other. There is no empirical evidence that one of those must be female and the other male in order for a child to thrive. Love is, of course, paramount, but recent studies have suggested that love in same sex families is commensurate with that in heterosexual families.
Yea, you're right its all about money. Hospital visitation rights; child custody rights, in times of death or severe disability; direct communications with doctors regarding a spouse's health and care; property rights; inheritance rights; the right to exist as a married couple as opposed to two individuals living together; these and many other spousal rights have nothing to do with the movement, unless they can be accomplished for monetary gain.
Dumbass! Oh shit, pardon me.
Not legalizing same sex marriage does nothing to alter same sex living together so how are we farther from your Sodom?
One would hope when you put your "foots" down that you're careful not to step on your "feet".
Does the Right Wing Rev even know Ted Sporer? If so, how could you say:
"Honestly, it is time you took up the causes of the GOP base and not just your own brand of fiscal conservatism, there are many of us whom you speak for as the county chair who see this issue as being extremely important, so do your job and shout to high heaven about this issue."
Ted Sporer has been pounding this drum for at least three years. Did you know our Chairman distributed thousands of bumper stickers that said "Respect Marriage-Vote Republican"? This was back in 2006.
Did you know our Chairman tried to get the larger dollar people to fund a billboard plan with the same message. Party leadership above him said "NO".
Did you know that our Chairman has been trying to debate the Dem leadership, on TV, on this issue and they run from him. The one Dem who tried left the room early because Ted crushed him.
This didn't just start either, Sporer has been demanding that the legislators take this up for at least three years.
Even when I worked over in the RPI building I routinely heard Ted talking about action on this issue.
Hopefully you will support Ted's efforts to raise this issue in the public eye. The rest of our party leadership is scared so I'm sure Ted could use the support.
We've had one person in our party who has tried to engage the Democrats and everyone attacks him for being "confrontational" with the Democrats. Its pretty hard to listen to someone criticize Ted for not speaking more forcefully on gay marriage when he has been muzzled at every turn.
Oh, don't forget, the new state Chairman was the majority leader who didn't even try to get the defense of marriage through a Republican Senate.
Sorry Mr. Sporer but I couldn't let that one go without responding.
daisy:
The one Dem who tried left the room early because Ted crushed him.
Damn! I was born in the wrong state.
I haven't seen sporie crush anybody. And he sure as hell don't crush me.
Arty,
It's NATURAL for a mother (i.e. female) to be a nuturer and the father to be the authoritarian. You have to play role reversals to have it with two males or two females.
Nature intended there to be one man united to one wife for a family to exist. Our society is based upon this premise. Trying to substitute anything else is an attack on society.
"but recent studies have suggested that love in same sex families is commensurate with that in heterosexual families."
Studies by who? I'm sure they are totally unbiased, right?
Bgunzy,
So banning gay marriage will somehow make gay people lose their natural sexual preferences and there will no longer be same-sex couples living together? No longer will children be exposed to the sight of a same sex couple if you and your like have your way? Maybe those gay people will listen to our legislators, be attracted to the opposite sex, get married, and start procreating.
Plus, once we are done banning those horrible same sex couples, what are we going to do about single parents? Seems like a much more widespread problem that you should be concerned about.
It is sad that the Republican party is putting so much effort into denying gay people and children of gay people the benefit of the legal protections of marriage.
Chuck and other anti-gay people will only discuss gay parenting instead of gay marriage, because they are incapable of articulating any honest threat from gay marriage.
To be intellectually honest, if Republicans feel so strongly that marriage should only exist to raise children, the party should be advocating marriage only when a child has already been born. And come up with a policy for taking children away from single parents. And so on.
bgunzy:
Oh hell, I forgot about Mother Nature's Original Manifesto. I think I remember seeing it in the library when I was young. Isn't that the one where she said, men will forever have "balls" and women will have "penis envy"?
Thanks for small favors, at least you didn't tell me how it was all God's plan.
Those attacks on society: Would they include single moms and single dads? Would that be a grandparent who takes on rearing a grandchild? Or even the state when it decides to rescue and raise a child? Did Mother Nature's Manifesto dictate that a widowed mom or dad must remarry? How did a large part of the world escape Mother Nature's definitions?
Nature intended there to be one man united to one wife for a family to exist.
Not sure but it appears there is something Freudian going on in that sentence. As it stands, lesbians would have a problem, but since in same sex relationships among men, one of them usually takes on the role of wife, where's the beef?
Unbiased? That was a criteria? Has there ever been a study where the conclusions were in opposition to conservative conventional wisdom which you did not consider biased?
The Democratic Party survives due to many coalitions some of which are at odds with each other. The main voting bloc happens to be Blacks and the more bizarre the Democrats become the less likely Church going Christian Blacks will suffer it. Women, Gays, and a host of unrelated causes piggyback on the Black Civil Rights movement as an attempt to get superior rights by defining largely contrived conditions in terms of Civil Rights. Invariably these groups lean far to the left and conveniently ignore common sense in the process. Democrats can't win without the entire Black population voting for them as even a 5% defection will enable Republicans to win in most cases. The funny part is the far left liberal activists take Black voters for granted and risk losing their support because it is so obvious Democrats care for Blacks around voting time and not too many other times.
Blacks have been lied to by Democrats for decades not the least of which is the Democratic Party's long history of racism.
Ken,
Before you get too carried away with your pride in GOP history, please refer to Lincoln Chafee's statement I mentioned in the first entry of this thread.
Uh Oh..Hillary is pissed. She started Media Matters. This is HER group that is going after Russert.
Hey Tim Russert - watch your back. Enemies of Hellery end up in prison, dead or IRS audited.
======
Liberal Group Targets Tim Russert
Monday, March 3, 2008 4:15 PM
The liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America has gone on the attack against longtime “Meet the Press” host Tim Russert, saying he has “regularly smeared” Democrats on a variety of issues.
In Sporer's defense. When you have such a hot spouse, it might be difficult to fathom how anyone could be gay.
Is she blind? Just curious.
right wing rev:
Have always found it difficult to understand how a man of the cloth could ever sign onto movement conservative. Oh I know they pander to the same social mores you may hold but they also pander to the wealthy and that seems anathema to biblical teachings.
If sporie is to take a stronger stand on this issue, he's going to have to firm up his argument skills. Based on what he posts on here he would lose a high school debate on the subject.
right wing rev:
I would quote what is stated at the bottom of this blog: “when you attack don't pull up because you'll get no credit for showing restraint."
I'm trying to envision how "turning the other cheek" fits into that quote.
Oops! Could it be that "rev" is short for "revolutionary"?
Art,
Your ignorance continues to shine in all matters including your latest addition – RELIGION.
Art wrote:
"Have always found it difficult to understand how a man of the cloth could ever sign onto movement conservative."
For the sake of tradition, allow me to once again point out you sound like that idiot Klein whenever you start statements without using first person singular pronouns. To answer your question as to why there are so many Christians in the “Christian Conservative Movement” that requires deep thought which escapes those who can’t grasp difficult concepts. For example, Obama’s statement that Al Qaeda is not in Iraq despite the fact the group’s name is “Al Qaeda in Iraq” makes a lot of sense to liberals because they don’t understand facts and reality. Such a state of confusion must make it hard for someone like Art to believe Christians are part of the Christian Conservative Movement as reality is a very distant concept at best. It must be all the more difficult if it turns out that Art, like Klein, is not Christian.
Ted Sporer was a great debater, better coach and is very persuasive arguer at the appellate level.
The problems with people like Art Layman and the other fake names is their substitution of belief for reasoned argument.
You would never concede Ted effectively argued his position because you will never agree with the conclusion, however reasoned.
Most of the argument on blogs is nothing more than the exchange of advocacy statements (at best) or insults (typical).
I've known Ted for over 30 years. Very few people emerge from arguments with him not feeling bested, believe me he has pounded me on more that one or two occassions.
kennie:
I know you're a slow learner but I would have thought by now it would be clear to you that I don't really care if I sound like Klein or not. I have my own style and if Klein copied it, not a problem.
Can appreciate your confusion. The conservative movement did not start out as a purely Christian movement. Nor does it hold itself out to be even today except in the limited minds of a few. The conservative movement by itself did not have sufficient numbers to be viable and since there was an overlap on the social values side and the Christian right, Falwell, Robertson and others, were seeking more political power, a confluence of interests was established. The fit was really only in the social values area with some bleeding over into the smaller government argument, mainly because the Christian right gets concerned about the power of big government.
The Christian right became the largest and strongest faction of the movement and is pandered to because of their ability to deliver votes.
The title of Christian Conservative Movement was developed by the Christian right and is not considered by most conservatives as validly representing a description of the movement or the Republican Party. It's one of those; oh yea, them, it's ok if it makes them happy; whatever you do don't piss them off.
It should have been clear to me that you were a deep thinker, don't know how I missed that one.
Just to make you happy, since you always like to fish, I joined a Christian church, Methodist, when I was in the 8th grade. Prior to that I was nothing as were my parents. My brother, God rest his soul, became one of those nutsy Evangelical protestants when he was 18.
I converted to Judaism when I got married and over the past 44 years have segued to what was likely always my true bent; agnosticism, if not flat out atheism. Happy?
One must be truly amazed that you would suggest you are Christian, given your bigoted viewpoints on so many things.
anonymous 1:26:
I do not have your years of history with sporie. Is that a bad thing?
I can only go with what he posts here and it is far from logical or valid or winning argument. It is often rants. Often nothing more, to your point, than his personal beliefs.
I certainly am not devoid in that area myself. It is one of the reasons to blog, is it not? I do however, sprinkle my inanity with logic and reasoned thought from time to time and sporie has trouble dealing with that.
Careful about saying that sporie has pounded you on more than one or two occasions; kenrichards is a homophobe and gets all bent out of shape when he sees talk like that.
I understand the hostilely to Klein as even Democrats have the same response to the guy. The reason I Compare Art to Klein is because I believe they are one and the same and that dumbass Klein blames Ted for getting stomped in Iowa. BTW - Klein was Jewish and Art a Layman just admitted that one too. Clearly, if they are not one and the same they are long lost twin brothers who coincidentally swapped roles at the EXACT same moment (Jan 3rd).
I know we erroneously pushed Klein at IowaFathers.com but that was before I met the guy and discovered he was a complete loon (wheelchair and all). The issue of fathers being denied the right to be active in their children's lives is important which is why we gave this bozo our initial support in the first place.
I make no apologies for my Libertarian/Republican views or those of my views on national defense and our pathetic courts which insist fathers have only one role which is to pay child support. Anyone who disagrees with my views will suffer whenever they post to the contrary and perhaps it is a coincidence but it seems those who I find most detestable turn out to be hard core Democrats. Of course, I am smiling today because the Hildebeast has new life and the long awaited destruction of the Democratic Party is at hand.
Spell check betrayed me again!!!!!
HOSTILITY rather than hostilely
kennie:
BTW - Klein was Jewish and Art a Layman just admitted that one too.
I wonder what Klein is now. The tone of that statement makes me wonder if I should be listening for those sirens.
Maybe, in order to be accepted in sporie's vaunted world of intellect, filled with characters akin to Guys and Dolls, an ambition that drives my ever waking moment, if I change my name to Art DeLay the minions will sing my praises.
Why not try Art Vandelay instead? At least those 80 years younger than you could relate to the reference.
Of course, George Costanza was funny but Art Laysmen IS just plain pathetic.
kennie:
Are you on that short bus again with the kids?
Post a Comment