If the Republicans change platform to accept Homosexu@l marriage...

[Salty]

Karl Rove has stated that the next GOP POTUS candidate might support homosexu@l marriage.


Rev Huckabee has stated that “They might. And if they do, they’re going to lose a large part of their base because evangelicals will take a walk,” he responds.

“And it’s not because there’s an anti-homosexual mood, and nobody’s homophobic that I know of, but many of us, and I consider myself included, base our standards not on the latest Washington Post poll,..."

Where do you stand?

 

[preachinjesus]

Couple this with their obvious lip service to the abortion issue and its time for Evangelicals to leave.

I've already left. They are as corrupt a party as the Democrats...and for entirely different reasons.

We are led by fools and pagans, what else should we expect?

 

[Salty]

I am registered with the Conservative Party of NY. I trust that we would NOT cross-endorse such a candidate. (NY has the fusion ballot)

 

[church mouse guy]

I do not think that a major GOP is likely to endorse same-sex marriage because gays are nearly 100% Democrat. However, the GOP has been the party of "Me, too!" since FDR, but the Democrats own that issue. I don't know which party will first endorse polygamy.

 

[Alcott]

There is a lot of talk about the Republican Party being scrapped, passe, or whatever, because it failed to win back the White House in '12. But if you remember the 70's and similar talks then, you should be convinced there is not a great deal of reason to be concerned. The party came back and captured the Senate and the presidency in 1980 by becoming more conservative; whereas in the 60's while its officeholders showed greater support for civil rights than the Democrats did, it failed to hold either house or the presidency until the D's own inner turmoil cost them.

This whole thing is just politics and its pendulums swinging. But I think the only change as to same-sex marriage would be for the party to choose to have no plank at all. If the non-committed don't like it, they need to be reminded of our government's 'official' stand of not supporting or opposing any religion, and asked then if 'nothingness'/neutrality is a thing they don't want.

 

[go2church]

Interesting question. In my experience, voting is an exercise in compromise. No one candidate seems to ever answer all the questions in just the way I would want. So I guess I would have to say it depends on answers to the other questions. For me the question that I keep coming back to is about economics and finances before anything else. If you have bad fiscal policy it doesn't really matter what you want to do, you won't be able to afford it.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

The Repubicans lost me when I became disillusioned with the Neocon's middle eastern misadventures. If the GOP ever endorsed same-sex marriage, then that party would deserve its inevitable collapse.

 

[Oldtimer]

I am a registered Democrat for local election purposes during the primaries.

Come November, generally vote Republican. Even when holding my nose to do so, as their opponents usually have a stronger odor.

I also am a Bible-thumping, red-necked conservative who believes in the Constitution as it was originally written. As such, in 2016, I will not vote for any candidate that doesn't stand up for biblical ie traditional marriage.

Nor anyone who endorses the murder of unborn children.

Nor anyone else who promises to "fundamentally change this nation".

Even though I can be affected negatively, economics, foreign policy, environment, education, and a host of other issues come in as secondary considerations. Yes, I'll pay higher taxes if it means baby killing comes to a stop. Yes, I'll eat more beans and rice if it means my pastor can read scriptures from any Bible he chooses without fear of being charged with "hate speech".

Who I'll vote for in 2016? Don't have a clue. It may be the first time in 49 (+/-) years that I'll vote third party or write in a candidate's name -- Jesus Christ -- if He hasn't already returned by then.

That is, if we have elections in Nov 2016. The words "never let a good crisis go to waste" keeps echoing in the recessses of my mind.

 

[just-want-peace]

I am a registered Democrat for local election purposes during the primaries.

Come November, generally vote Republican. Even when holding my nose to do so, as their opponents usually have a stronger odor.

I also am a Bible-thumping, red-necked conservative who believes in the Constitution as it was originally written. As such, in 2016, I will not vote for any candidate that doesn't stand up for biblical ie traditional marriage.

Nor anyone who endorses the murder of unborn children.

Nor anyone else who promises to "fundamentally change this nation".

Even though I can be affected negatively, economics, foreign policy, environment, education, and a host of other issues come in as secondary considerations. Yes, I'll pay higher taxes if it means baby killing comes to a stop. Yes, I'll eat more beans and rice if it means my pastor can read scriptures from any Bible he chooses without fear of being charged with "hate speech".

Who I'll vote for in 2016? Don't have a clue. It may be the first time in 49 (+/-) years that I'll vote third party or write in a candidate's name -- Jesus Christ -- if He hasn't already returned by then.

That is, if we have elections in Nov 2016. The words "never let a good crisis go to waste" keeps echoing in the recessses of my mind.

With the exception of being a registered Democrat, I'll ditto all the above with gusto!!!:thumbs::thumbs:

(Especially the last paragraph!?):tear:

 

[go2church]

Jesus doesn't want to be president or governor or any other elected position. He already is the King of kings and Lord of lords.

 

[Salty]

Jesus doesn't want to be president or governor or any other elected position. He already is the King of kings and Lord of lords.

So any born again Christian who is elected to public office is sinning?

 

[Crabtownboy]

First, I am for traditional marriage ... a man and a woman.

I wish that instead of marriage the politicians and others would use a different term, like civil union. It would not be a legal marriage, but a legal something else. Not saying I would like it, but it would be better than calling it marriage.

That said, politicians want to be elected. To be elected to any national office mans that man or woman has compromised themselves in one way or another to be elected. I believe more and more politicians will switch from con to pro simply because of wanting votes. Their public stance may or may not reflect their personal feelings. But since when has a politician really stood by personal beliefs if they know it will cost them an election?

Bottom line, IMHO, is that no matter what it is called it will become law unless the SC decides differently and I doubt they will.

 

[salzer mtn]

If Christians spent more time on their knees praying for this country instead of at the polls voting for crooks we might yet see a nation blessed by God again.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If Christians spent more time on their knees praying for this country instead of at the polls voting for crooks we might yet see a nation blessed by God again.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Salty]

If Christians spent more time on their knees praying for this country instead of at the polls voting for crooks we might yet see a nation blessed by God again.

Actually we need to do both!