PDA

View Full Version : "Montana GOP policy: Make homosexuality illegal..."




phill4paul
09-18-2010, 11:04 AM
So this is part of their platform? Really? Way to drown the GOP on a national level because of bigotry. Now every liberal out there will sway moderates over gay rights issue. Idiots.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100918/ap_on_re_us/us_gays_in_montana;


HELENA, Mont. – At a time when gays have been gaining victories across the country, the Republican Party in Montana still wants to make homosexuality illegal.

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.

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."

Gay rights have been rapidly advancing nationwide since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas' sodomy law in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas decision. Gay marriage is now allowed in five states and Washington, D.C., a federal court recently ruled the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy unconstitutional, and even a conservative tea party group in Montana ousted its president over an anti-gay exchange in Facebook.

But going against the grain is the Montana GOP statement, which falls under the "Crime" section of the GOP platform. It states: "We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal."

Montana GOP executive director Bowen Greenwood said that has been the position of the party since the state Supreme Court struck down state laws criminalizing homosexuality in 1997 in the case of Gryczan v. Montana.

Nobody has ever taken the initiative to change it and so it's remained in the party platform, Greenwood said. The matter has never even come up for discussion, he said.

"There had been at the time, and still is, a substantial portion of Republican legislators that believe it is more important for the Legislature to make the law instead of the Supreme Court," Greenwood said.

Critics say the policy is a toothless statement, the effect of which is simply to make gays feel excluded. A University of Montana law professor says Montana's 1997 case and the U.S. Supreme Court's Lawrence decision means there's no real chance for the state GOP to act on its position.

"To me, that statement legally is hollow," said constitutional specialist Jack Tuholske. "The principle under Gryczan and under Lawrence, that's the fundamental law of the land and the Legislature can't override the Constitution. It might express their view, but as far as a legal reality, it's a hollow view and can't come to pass."

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?"

I understand the need to exhort state rights. Honestly, this ain't the way to go about it.

Stary Hickory
09-18-2010, 11:22 AM
Yeah really this is ignorant. How you use your own body in realtion to another willing participant is none of states business. The GOP in Montana had best get it's act together. You don't have to like homosexual activity if you do not want to but you may not use force to intervene when people are not hurting anyone.

RedStripe
09-18-2010, 11:22 AM
one of the strongest arguments against state's rights: some of the people who support it would have more power

BuddyRey
09-18-2010, 11:24 AM
Wow. I always thought Montana was a relatively libertarian state.

:::reluctantly crosses Montana off "Bug-Out States" list:::

Stary Hickory
09-18-2010, 11:25 AM
one of the strongest arguments against state's rights: some of the people who support it would have more power

But at the very least people could move. As long as freedom to move and live where you wanted was in place there would be 50 competing governments out there where the language and culture were basically the same.

A Republic, a real one, is a vast improvement over the monopoly we have now.

phill4paul
09-18-2010, 11:26 AM
Yeah really this is ignorant. How you use your own body in realtion to another willing participant is none of states business. The GOP in Montana had best get it's act together. You don't have to like homosexual activity if you do not want to but you may not use force to intervene when people are not hurting anyone.

Especially when such archaic and bigoted platforms make national headlines.

Some in the GOP just don't understand the concept of less government intervention.

RedStripe
09-18-2010, 11:28 AM
But at the very least people could move. As long as freedom to move and live where you wanted was in place there would be 50 competing governments out there where the language and culture were basically the same.

A Republic, a real one, is a vast improvement over the monopoly we have now.

Yea, people can move now, to Canada or wherever.

I'm very skeptical of the idea that things would be much better if we "left it up to the states". Thank God for the 14th Amendment at least.

erowe1
09-18-2010, 11:29 AM
Wow. I always thought Montana was a relatively libertarian state.

:::reluctantly crosses Montana off "Bug-Out States" list:::

Not that I approve of the platform, but before making too much of it, it's not their state law, it's just an outdated plank in the state GOP platform that they haven't bothered to change and are obviously never going to follow through on. And if by some chance they ever did pursue it and get it passed, then their anti-sodomy law would be irrelevant and never enforced outside of rape cases just like the old Texas one was.

phill4paul
09-18-2010, 11:32 AM
one of the strongest arguments against state's rights: some of the people who support it would have more power

In no way would this fly. First it is just an archaic principle in a platform that doesn't have a backing. None except for a few that say it is the will of "We the People." "We the People" being a few bigots.

I would rather defend against a states intrusion of personally liberties than against a federal one. Their resources are less limited.

I don't think that is such a strong argument against states rights.

fj45lvr
09-18-2010, 11:47 AM
Wasn't this the formal policy of most states in the Union? for years? Just curious on the "roll-back" of these laws.

HOLLYWOOD
09-18-2010, 11:53 AM
Grand
Ole
Party
=
Grand
Old
Ignorance

Ignorance is Bliss? Another reason why we call them RINOs/FOSSILs

Shouldn't Romney and the Huckster be up there in Montana crusading the cause?

phill4paul
09-18-2010, 11:58 AM
Grand
Ole
Party
=
Grand
Old
Ignorance

Ignorance is Bliss? Another reason why we call them RINOs/FOSSILs

Shouldn't Romney and the Huckster be up there in Montana crusading the cause?


I thought Montana was all about gun rights. For all their savvy the sure like shooting themselves, and the national GOP, in the foot.

erowe1
09-18-2010, 12:00 PM
Wasn't this the formal policy of most states in the Union? for years? Just curious on the "roll-back" of these laws.

Lawrence v. Texas outlawed Texas' anti-sodomy law. Ron Paul came out swinging against that ruling.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

I'm sure that if any states still have such laws on the books, they're just obsolete unenforced laws like the laws on dueling that are supposedly still on the books in some places.

Brian4Liberty
09-18-2010, 12:06 PM
Planks should have at least 90% agreement. Seriously, how can anyone claim that 50.1% of a group represent the entire group?

They are doing the same thing with the Tea Party. They get one or two people, or even around 50%, and claim that represents the entire movement. Collectivist to the extreme.

sailingaway
09-18-2010, 02:26 PM
I understand this keeps being rolled in because it isn't challenged -- but hasn't been SUGGESTED either, since forever. They should just take it out. It is embarrassing.

"Nobody has ever taken the initiative to change it and so it's remained in the party platform, Greenwood said. The matter has never even come up for discussion, he said."

erowe1
09-18-2010, 02:47 PM
I understand this keeps being rolled in because it isn't challenged -- but hasn't been SUGGESTED either, since forever. They should just take it out. It is embarrassing.

"Nobody has ever taken the initiative to change it and so it's remained in the party platform, Greenwood said. The matter has never even come up for discussion, he said."

The problem might be that when they do that they could call even more attention to it, especially if it involves a fight within the party where it emerges that a signigicant portion of them want the plank to stay in the platform.

If a lot of press gets given to this, then they might have more to lose by keeping it than by getting rid of it. But they might just be trying to lay low about it until that happens.

sailingaway
09-18-2010, 03:37 PM
The problem might be that when they do that they could call even more attention to it, especially if it involves a fight within the party where it emerges that a signigicant portion of them want the plank to stay in the platform.

If a lot of press gets given to this, then they might have more to lose by keeping it than by getting rid of it. But they might just be trying to lay low about it until that happens.

They should just make the next platform start from scratch, no carry overs, unless brought up and voted on. And do it behind closed doors if necessary, but in MONTANA? I think of Montana as a 'leave everyone else alone' state.

erowe1
09-18-2010, 03:50 PM
They should just make the next platform start from scratch, no carry overs, unless brought up and voted on. And do it behind closed doors if necessary, but in MONTANA? I think of Montana as a 'leave everyone else alone' state.

Yeah, there may be a way to do it like that.

I think your impression of Montana is correct. I don't think this really reflects the state. The people who got that plank in the platform were probably not even in the majority of the state GOP at the time that they did it.

pcosmar
09-18-2010, 03:54 PM
Is this the same GOP that has been busted for messin' with little boys and bathroom blowjobs?

Just curious. Seems that there is a level of hypocrisy that just don't sit right.

Some of you might want to look back at the Franklin Credit Union Scandal.
[Caution , Deep rabbit hole]