Thursday, December 2, 2010

proof of a gay conspiracy?

I've often wondered if the Republican party and the so-called Conservative movement is really pro gay rights but simply feign their opposition to fool their many followers. After all, many conservatives throughout the fifty states don't follow the ins and outs of government, they aren't sophisticated enough to discern slight changes in the law, political arguments, briefs before the Supreme Court, etc. But they know what they believe, and if a politicians says they support traditional values and is against the radical gay rights movement, that's good enough for them.

But as the hard left proceeds in changing our mores, I've thought why is that? Republicans are so clever on fooling us about tax cuts. For instance, they are now arguing it is essential that we maintain the Bush Tax cuts, because if not we will not have job creation. It sounds like it makes sense, and how many in Iowa, Nebraska, or South Carolina will really think: "but we've had these same tax cuts for 10 years and it's been one of the worst 10 years in job creation ever"?

O r The Republicans are so clever in getting us to spend more money on the military, and to expand our commitments around the globe. It was easy to conflate Sadaam Hussein into Osama Bin Laden at least emotionally if not intellectually.

But on gay rights some how Republicans are stupid? They can't raise the money to produce pro-family t.v. shows everyone would want to watch? They can do a FoxNews, have a Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, but not sustain an offensive against the gay rights crowd?

They can dissuade people about global warming, but powerless on the sanctity of marriage?

Welll, here's even more evidence that Republicans have been corrupted by the gay rights crowd, listen to the Lawrence v. Texas audio transcript from the 2003 Supreme Court case. Parts I and Parts 2 are the plaintiffs, the left wingers. Parts 3 and 4 is the state of Texas.

The Conservative lawyer is so bad and incompetent, that the judges take to arguing among themselves, and ignoring him. Justice Scalia couldn't believe the damage this guy was doing to his cause.

I agree with the Lawrence decision as it was improper. But the case could have been used by those of us who support traditonal values to assert some common sense into the public square, and define the state's ability to define morality and promote it's own good values.

No comments: