PDA

View Full Version : Alabama Republicans Seek To Purge Young Conservative Over Marriage Views




Lucille
08-17-2013, 10:19 AM
The Boomers are why we can't have nice things.

THE OLD GUARD
http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=59280


The Republican Party has a Millennial problem. This sounds acutely familiar. The old republican guard didn’t like when young people rallied around Ron Paul. So they decided to black him out of the debates and publicity. They didn’t like when mass numbers of Milliennials came out to vote in the primaries and not choosing their golden boy Mitt Romney. So they shut them out from the debate and selected the winners of the primaries before all the votes were counted (they called Iowa for Mitt Romney even though he didn’t win). They didn’t like young Ron Paul voters becoming delegates and changing the conversation. So they banned them from the Tampa Republican Convention. The old guard is weakening themselves. When young people don’t agree, the rewrite the laws.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/alabama-gop-trying-to-oust-college-republican-for-defending

Senior members of the Alabama Republican Party are trying to kick a 23-year-old college Republican off their steering committee after she told a local news site that same-sex marriage was reasonable because “we’re governed by the constitution and not the Bible.”

Stephanie Petelos, who chairs the College Republicans Federation of Alabama, made the comments to AL.com in June shortly after the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage in June. The state party’s chair, Bill Armistead, had called decision “an affront to the Christian principles that this nation was founded on.”

Petelos didn’t make reference to Armistead directly, but instead argued that the marriage issue was a generational one, and that fiery religion-themed political rhetoric could alienate younger conservatives.


“The majority of students don’t derive the premise of their argument for or against gay marriage from religion, because we’re governed by the constitution and not the Bible,” Petelos said.

Though some young Republicans have come out in support of gay marriage, Petelos said even more probably believe in it but remain quiet in fear of retribution.

“I think a lot of people would be actively for it if they didn’t live in fear of backlash from party leaders,” she said. “We don’t want to go against the party, we love the party. We’re just passionate about a whole list of other issues, that’s why we’re involved.”

Petelos told BuzzFeed that some members of the state party’s leadership were furious when her comments were published, and they began discussing ways to oust her from the party’s steering committee, which always guarantees a spot for the college Republican chair. She eventually struck a deal with the leadership.

“If I didn’t talk to any more press, or post on Facebook, or use any of my influence to talk about gay marriage, then they would not try to continue removing me from the steering committee,” Petelos said.

Petelos said she has kept up her end of the deal, and she declined to answer BuzzFeed’s questions about the marriage issue. But she said one member of the steering committee, Bonny Sachs, has continued a campaign to get rid of her, and has been ginning up support among members of the state party.

Sachs proposed a change to the state party bylaws this week that would stipulate that anyone who voiced an opinion contrary to the Republican National Committee’s national platform would be removed from the steering committee — a move many acknowledge directly targets Petelos.

Reached for comment, Sachs told BuzzFeed only, “It’s an internal issue that the party will handle.”

The local intra-party conflict comes at a time when the national GOP is trying to broaden its appeal and build a new national coalition of voters that includes young social moderates. In fact, the RNC published a report in January that included a call to be more tolerant of a range of opinions on gay rights.

“Already, there is a generational difference within the conservative movement about issues involving the treatment and the rights of gays — and for many younger voters, these issues are a gateway into whether the Party is a place they want to be,” the RNC report read.

The Alabama state party will vote on the change to the bylaws next week. In the meantime, some Alabama Republicans are fuming over the efforts to punish an active young Republican for expressing an opinion that is increasingly popular among her generational peers.

“She’s a 23-year-old girl who’s being bullied by some 50- and 60-year-old people because she made a statement in the paper,” said Chris Brown, former chair of the Young Republican Federation of Alabama.

“I think that our party is big enough for diverse opinions,” Brown added. “Some of our extreme right conservatives don’t want diverse opinions.”

The proposed change to the bylaws:

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr03/2013/8/16/12/enhanced-buzz-19842-1376671167-13.jpg

Austrian Econ Disciple
08-17-2013, 10:43 AM
Imagine the outrage of a truly libertarian approach. Legal polygamy, gay 'marriage', 2 husbands/1wife, etc. etc. God forbid free people from contracting with other free people in whatever arrangements they want! Time to stop this ridiculous bribery through welfare and tax incentives for certain contractual arrangements. The Government should be adjudicator*, not a heavy-handed gavel of permissible arrangements. I get tired of these neanderthals on both sides of the aisle.

*If we are to have a Government

Kotin
08-17-2013, 10:53 AM
God forbid free people from contracting with other free people in whatever arrangements they want!

this is the crux of the issue. they cry religious persecution whenever they feel slighted but are more than happy, nay, passionate about making sure no one else can do the same thing they want to do which is to be free from other people's whims and do what you choose as long as it violates nobody else's rights..\

it seems like such a simple concept and goes hand and hand with the golden rule which they seem to not be able to grasp.. the golden rule is a one way road for most of these "social cons"..

I wonder how they would feel if I went into their house and pointed a gun at them for drinking something that I deem dangerous or hazardous to health.. I wonder how they would feel if I told them their idea of marriage is heresy and punishable by imprisonment or death.. I know how they would feel cause its what they have been doing to the rest of us for as long as I know..

they would take up arms and rightly so.. but am I not afforded the same right?? its utter bullshit.

phill4paul
08-17-2013, 10:55 AM
Hopefully, with the help of some, the GOP will evolve to adopt a platform which calls for the government to be out of the marriage business altogether. I'm not gonna hold my breath. There is much power in the "us vs. them" mentality.

Origanalist
08-17-2013, 10:55 AM
Imagine the outrage of a truly libertarian approach. Legal polygamy, gay 'marriage', 2 husbands/1wife, etc. etc. God forbid free people from contracting with other free people in whatever arrangements they want! Time to stop this ridiculous bribery through welfare and tax incentives for certain contractual arrangements. The Government should be adjudicator*, not a heavy-handed gavel of permissible arrangements. I get tired of these neanderthals on both sides of the aisle.

*If we are to have a Government

Well yes, there it is in a nutshell. This whole issue would be moot if the government weren't deciding who can keep how much of what they earn and what legal arrangements between people are to be allowed. Enough with the social engineering. Freedom of association and no tax preferences for behavior. If there have to be taxes let them be the same for everyone regardless.


(By the way, I am a boomer.)

LibertyEagle
08-17-2013, 11:04 AM
What happened to the idea that the federal government shouldn't be involved in marriage, period? Did that kind of go out the window, or what exactly?

Origanalist
08-17-2013, 11:06 AM
What happened to the idea that the federal government shouldn't be involved in marriage, period? Did that kind of go out the window, or what exactly?

That, and a very long list of other things.

fr33
08-17-2013, 11:34 AM
What happened to the idea that the federal government shouldn't be involved in marriage, period? Did that kind of go out the window, or what exactly?

Well basically the only people that agree with that are the people who voted for Ron Paul. As you know there aren't very many of us so actually getting that to happen is almost impossible. What will happen and IS happening is that gays will get their sanctioned marriages. I don't care much about it but to be honest allowing them equal treatment under these laws is acceptable to me.

fr33
08-17-2013, 11:36 AM
From the comments:

http://i42.tinypic.com/15q7xon.jpg

Austrian Econ Disciple
08-17-2013, 11:38 AM
What happened to the idea that the federal government shouldn't be involved in marriage, period? Did that kind of go out the window, or what exactly?

Who's advocating such? Time to stop the prohibition of certain contractual arrangements, and end tax incentives for certain behavior. As far as .Feds are concerned, they should get out of the way just like States, and local municipalities.

Origanalist
08-17-2013, 11:40 AM
From the comments:

http://i42.tinypic.com/15q7xon.jpg

The only problem with that is the alternative which is currently holding the presidency and the Senate.

Lucille
08-17-2013, 11:41 AM
Well yes, there it is in a nutshell. This whole issue would be moot if the government weren't deciding who can keep how much of what they earn and what legal arrangements between people are to be allowed. Enough with the social engineering. Freedom of association and no tax preferences for behavior. If there have to be taxes let them be the same for everyone regardless.


(By the way, I am a boomer.)

Gen X here. My mother and FIL were both born in '40, but they are definitely Boomers in attitude.

http://www.lifecourse.com/about/method/generational-archetypes.html


Homeland 2005-Present
Millennial 1982-2004
Generation X 1961-1981
Boom 1943-1960
Silent 1925-1942
G.I. 1901-1924
Lost 1883-1900
Missionary 1860–1882
Progressive 1843-1859
Gilded 1822-1842
Transcendental 1792-1821
Compromise 1767-1791
Republican 1742-1766
Liberty 1724-1741
Awakening 1701-1723

(Over at TBP a few weeks back, someone in the comments was talking about how the Boomers are guilty of generational genocide of the Xers. I never thought about abortion that way before, but it's really true.)

Origanalist
08-17-2013, 11:45 AM
Gen X here. My mother and FIL were both born in '40, but they are definitely Boomers in attitude.

http://www.lifecourse.com/about/method/generational-archetypes.html



(Over at TBP a few weeks back, someone in the comments was talking about how the Boomers are guilty of generational genocide of the Xers. I never thought about abortion that way before, but it's really true.)

Oh, it's very true.

fr33
08-17-2013, 11:50 AM
The only problem with that is the alternative which is currently holding the presidency and the Senate.

The GOP's approach to gay marriage is a born loser. The youth view gay marriage as the civil rights fight of their time.

By the time you convince the GOP to take up the "get government out of marriage" banner (which might be never), gay marriage will already be an institution and the youth will feel that you are trying to undo what they accomplished.

Lucille
08-17-2013, 11:51 AM
Oh, it's very true.

It really is.

Not sure what year you were born, but you seem more like an Xer to me!

Origanalist
08-17-2013, 11:58 AM
It really is.

Not sure what year you were born, but you seem more like an Xer to me!

I'm pretty close, born in 58.

Origanalist
08-17-2013, 12:02 PM
The GOP's approach to gay marriage is a born loser. The youth view gay marriage as the civil rights fight of their time.

By the time you convince the GOP to take up the "get government out of marriage" banner (which might be never), gay marriage will already be an institution and the youth will feel that you are trying to undo what they accomplished.

I find both sides equally distasteful. The gopers making out like it's the end of civilization and the younger generation making out like it's the major issue of our time.

Big Hoss
08-20-2013, 07:28 AM
I agree with the GOP on this. No homosexual marriage. If they want to fight for ALL marriage to be taken out of the governments hands I could deal with that but not a government that endorses homosexual "marriage".

lib3rtarian
08-20-2013, 08:16 AM
I agree with the GOP on this. No homosexual marriage. If they want to fight for ALL marriage to be taken out of the governments hands I could deal with that but not a government that endorses homosexual "marriage".

Preferably, there should be no government involvement in marriage, but if that can't be done, then the government shouldn't decide who should marry and who shouldn't. All actions between consensual adults should be legal as long as they don't hurt anybody else. If 5 people want to get together and call it a "group marriage", I don't care.

Asking other people to live according to your religious beliefs is like getting mad at someone for eating a doughnut because you are on a diet. Also, if the GOP really wants to follow the Bible, I want them to also go after divorcees, people who get rounded haircuts, wear fabric with mixed fibers etc.

Melissa
08-20-2013, 08:35 AM
I hate that this is the issue people want to fight...as if it does much of anything for anyone...but here are my rules..1. Limited government...if the issue I am looking at gets past my number 1 by not growing government then I can move to number 2..but this issue does not pass number 1 it will grow government so I can't be in favor of it...and why oh why do people on both sides not use this issue for 2 things...too abolish the IRS (which is mostly why we need government marriages...so we know who gets the right credits) and 2. after getting rid of the IRS there is no reason for state sponsored marriage so we can work on getting them out and that would reduce the role of government...that is my take on this issue but still again very sad that this is what people want to use as the liberty issue without understanding all they are asking for is to grow government

Christian Liberty
08-20-2013, 08:47 AM
My position is government shouldn't be involved, and if that can't happen it should be left to each state. Personally, I don't want state recognized (emphasis added to make clear that I don't advocate laws preventing them from doing what they want) gay marriages in my state, but it should be up to each state.

Like originalist, I find both extremes annoying. I'd never decide my vote based on this issue, heck I probably wouldn't even vote on a "Define marriage as being between a man and a woman" vote because to do so is implicitly giving government the right to have a stance on the issue.

FreedomFighter1776
08-21-2013, 12:15 AM
It IS the civil rights issue of our time. The State has no authority to determine that contracts between consenting adults for a purpose that is not illegal should be unlawful.
Yes, get govt. out of marriage. Don't let them 'define' it. Gay marriage is not illegal but for the legislation that qualifies it as unlawful. Allowing them to 'define' marriage exceeds their authority; your neighbors don't get to restrict your ability to contract as you see fit.

Period. End of story.

Attempting to legislate morality is insane.

(EDIT) By the way, the State HAS to recognize the contract, just like they HAVE to recognize the validity of EVERY OTHER CONTRACT.

eduardo89
08-21-2013, 12:18 AM
The youth view gay marriage as the civil rights fight of their time.

Just goes to show how successful the homosexual lobby has been at pushing their agenda over the past few decades.

fr33
08-21-2013, 12:26 AM
Just goes to show how successful the homosexual lobby has been at pushing their agenda over the past few decades.

LOL it's such a minor lobby. Compare it to the Israeli and weapons manufacturer lobbies.

If we're supposed to pander to the neocon war machine like Rand is doing, why not pander to something that will be efficient among a demographic that could benefit them in elections? Oh I forgot. The GOP is full of bigots that hate muslims and gays. Silly me.

mad cow
08-21-2013, 01:33 AM
Gen X here. My mother and FIL were both born in '40, but they are definitely Boomers in attitude.

http://www.lifecourse.com/about/method/generational-archetypes.html



(Over at TBP a few weeks back, someone in the comments was talking about how the Boomers are guilty of generational genocide of the Xers. I never thought about abortion that way before, but it's really true.)


Who do you think has had more abortions,either per capita or gross numbers,boomers or X'ers?

Tywysog Cymru
08-21-2013, 03:55 PM
Just goes to show how successful the homosexual lobby has been at pushing their agenda over the past few decades.

I can already see the beginnings of the Neocons supporting gay marriage to appear "pro-freedom." It's interesting that the people most outspokenly advocating for SSM are usually the ones who want business-killing regulations, gun control, and shooting Arabs.

The lobby is very successful, they've managed to turn what should be a minor personal liberty issue into worst violation of Civil Rights since Jim Crow.

torchbearer
08-21-2013, 04:00 PM
more republicans will be switching over to the LP.

Krzysztof Lesiak
09-10-2013, 11:59 PM
Gotta fight these motherfuckers in the GOP. We can't give up.

Athan
09-12-2013, 11:13 AM
What happened to the idea that the federal government shouldn't be involved in marriage, period? Did that kind of go out the window, or what exactly?

I will say this, THAT is why the more religious members are losing control of their religious ceremonies to gay rights proponents. Because they made it the relm of the state and not the church. Look at how the Catholic Church can still refuse to ordaine female pastors to this day. It is their dogma practice.

HOLLYWOOD
09-12-2013, 12:07 PM
Hey, but if you hold the view of bombing the shit out of Independent countries... Com'on board... you're next on the list for promotion.

That GOP Extinction drawing fits the Party of Ancient on the way to the party of none.

ThePenguinLibertarian
09-12-2013, 05:04 PM
The GOP's approach to gay marriage is a born loser. The youth view gay marriage as the civil rights fight of their time.

By the time you convince the GOP to take up the "get government out of marriage" banner (which might be never), gay marriage will already be an institution and the youth will feel that you are trying to undo what they accomplished.

Its not a civil rights issue. If young people think this is more important than NSA spying, Repealing the PATRIOT ACT, Ending the War on Drugs or ensuring the protection of the Bill of Rights; then Civil Rights has lost all meaning. If its all about guaranteeing state sponsored rights, as well as benefits and special rhetoric for minority groups then the notion of civil rights has been a farce.

Keith and stuff
09-12-2013, 05:18 PM
So the man that ran the same sex marriage table at the National Young Republican Federation Convention in Alabama is now the Young Republican Federation of New Hampshire National Committeeman. He is in a relationship with a man. Oh, and is a libertarian ;) Liberty, it's catching on :)

fr33
09-12-2013, 05:28 PM
Its not a civil rights issue. If young people think this is more important than NSA spying, Repealing the PATRIOT ACT, Ending the War on Drugs or ensuring the protection of the Bill of Rights; then Civil Rights has lost all meaning. If its all about guaranteeing state sponsored rights, as well as benefits and special rhetoric for minority groups then the notion of civil rights has been a farce.

Well shake your fist and scream while they get gay marriage regardless. The other issues you mention are far more important which is why it's pointless to run people off because of gay marriage. They'll be less likely to help you on the NSA etc. It's a civil rights issue because the government is treating relationships unequally.

ThePenguinLibertarian
09-12-2013, 06:29 PM
Well shake your fist and scream while they get gay marriage regardless. The other issues you mention are far more important which is why it's pointless to run people off because of gay marriage. They'll be less likely to help you on the NSA etc. It's a civil rights issue because the government is treating relationships unequally.
I'm not saying gay marriage is bad, i'm saying it a distraction issue that is for political theatre. And most of these people don't care anything else. If they were, why not set up charities to help reform Arabia? The federal government is not treating them unequally, they simply recognize (or used to) that states have the right to define marriage as they see fit. They don't give gay couples tax benefits. That is bad, but now that they are paying the same rates (some even more like 9000 dollars more) they are not any more free. This debate especially from pro-gay advocates is a classic example of good political planning and silencing those who speak differently. it is now suicide to even say Mom and dad is better than two of one. The gay lobby is a lot more influential than it used to be. And they perverse incentives, create american tribalism and is an example of how our nation has gone from E Pluribus Unum to Ubi est mea. I find it distasteful that it is now okay to sue businesses for not serving gay couples, while it is not okay to say anything against them without being decried. That is not to say bigger fish should be fried. I still focus on Israel and Foreign Policy as well as quasi socialist crony capitalism. (however i am happy that Royal Mail has been privatized. I find it embarassing that Britain has privatize their national mail before we did.) Gay Marriage is not a defining issue that improved life or shook boundaries. It is merely a cooked job of media and opportunistic politicians who want to court more votes. Then they promise new initiatives and special representation. Whites, Blacks, Rich/Poor, and Men and Women have all fallen into this trap.
Marriage is a personal thing, it depends on the man and woman (or parties involved.) It should be a private contract that can be upheld. With this, people get to define what a marriage is. This Third way enhances freedom, Gets rid of extra government power and satisfies all parties. It does not undo progress, it leaps it.

ThePenguinLibertarian
09-12-2013, 06:29 PM
So the man that ran the same sex marriage table at the National Young Republican Federation Convention in Alabama is now the Young Republican Federation of New Hampshire National Committeeman. He is in a relationship with a man. Oh, and is a libertarian ;) Liberty, it's catching on :)
Is he a CATO who is obsessed with social "equality" or does he let "bigots" like me talk?

Keith and stuff
09-12-2013, 07:39 PM
Is he a CATO who is obsessed with social "equality" or does he let "bigots" like me talk?
I don't know if he has the ability to censor people. He is a libertarian Republican dedicated to advancing liberty but just like Rand Paul, he is willing to work with anymore, if he thinks it advances liberty. It is likely hard identifying as a gay Republican in some circles, but not where I live. I've only met him a 1/2 dozen times and cannot really answer your loaded question that well ;) I know his group was subjected to a bunch of BS by the National Young Republican Federation at the National Convention. He didn't complain to me ;)

BTW, same sex government marriage might be a distraction to you, but to young Americans, at least in the Northeast, it is 1 of the most important issues in the world. It's important to keep in mind what issues are important to the voters when playing politics.

fr33
09-13-2013, 09:59 PM
I'm not saying gay marriage is bad, i'm saying it a distraction issue that is for political theatre. And most of these people don't care anything else. If they were, why not set up charities to help reform Arabia? The federal government is not treating them unequally, they simply recognize (or used to) that states have the right to define marriage as they see fit. They don't give gay couples tax benefits. That is bad, but now that they are paying the same rates (some even more like 9000 dollars more) they are not any more free. This debate especially from pro-gay advocates is a classic example of good political planning and silencing those who speak differently. it is now suicide to even say Mom and dad is better than two of one. The gay lobby is a lot more influential than it used to be. And they perverse incentives, create american tribalism and is an example of how our nation has gone from E Pluribus Unum to Ubi est mea. I find it distasteful that it is now okay to sue businesses for not serving gay couples, while it is not okay to say anything against them without being decried. That is not to say bigger fish should be fried. I still focus on Israel and Foreign Policy as well as quasi socialist crony capitalism. (however i am happy that Royal Mail has been privatized. I find it embarassing that Britain has privatize their national mail before we did.) Gay Marriage is not a defining issue that improved life or shook boundaries. It is merely a cooked job of media and opportunistic politicians who want to court more votes. Then they promise new initiatives and special representation. Whites, Blacks, Rich/Poor, and Men and Women have all fallen into this trap.
Marriage is a personal thing, it depends on the man and woman (or parties involved.) It should be a private contract that can be upheld. With this, people get to define what a marriage is. This Third way enhances freedom, Gets rid of extra government power and satisfies all parties. It does not undo progress, it leaps it.

Making it a private contract is the best option IMO. But probably more than 80% of Republicans and 100% of Democrats want government involved in their version of marriage. It's just going to happen no matter what we want. That's why the story in the OP is an example of failure on the part of the GOP. Running young people off over what amounts to a personal religious principle in the eyes of most Republicans while they agree on most other things.

ThePenguinLibertarian
09-16-2013, 04:18 PM
Making it a private contract is the best option IMO. But probably more than 80% of Republicans and 100% of Democrats want government involved in their version of marriage. It's just going to happen no matter what we want. That's why the story in the OP is an example of failure on the part of the GOP. Running young people off over what amounts to a personal religious principle in the eyes of most Republicans while they agree on most other things.
Why can't somebody here write pamphlet or a small essay on how to privatize marriage. I saw one book that was called the third way, i tried finding it but i can't.

dannno
09-16-2013, 04:43 PM
[/B]

Who do you think has had more abortions,either per capita or gross numbers,boomers or X'ers?

That could really go both ways, I wasn't around for the boomers growing up in the 70s but I heard stories of busses full of teenage girls going to get abortions and whatnot, by the time gen x came around they had the birth control thing down better, more education and I imagine better birth control pills as well. Plus you actually had more parents ok with their daughters using contraception.