First TX, Now MT – What Part of Legal & Moral Rights Does GOP Not Get?

First it was Texas, now it’s MT; the latest state of GOP wingnuttery, to decide that homosexual acts are or should be illegal.  In this latest attack on reality and in an effort to deny minority rights, the MT GOP has included a line in their party platform to keep homosexual acts illegal. Here’s their most erudite and well thought-out party platform on this issue:

MT GOP Party Platform Criminalizing Homosexual Acts

Are these people so obtuse, that they don’t realize that the law of the land, as decided by the United States Supreme Court in the Lawrence vs. Texas case, struck down state’s efforts to ban homosexual sex?  Clearly the party leadership in these two states, continues to pursue an active agenda of criminalizing and minimizing the rights of gays and lesbians.

Ask yourself if this is the party you want taking the lead in WI or any state in the nation?  The GOP is a party that is so fixated on the sexual activities of consenting adults that they continue to spew forth their vile moral rectitude, while applauding their family value politicians like Senator Ensign, Senator Vitter and others of their ilk, who practice their heterosexual morality well beyond the confines of marriage.


Related Articles

7 thoughts on “First TX, Now MT – What Part of Legal & Moral Rights Does GOP Not Get?

  1. Putting aside all the obvious moral implications of that platform, it’s also probably bad politics. Montanans definitely do not support making homosexuality illegal anymore. In fact, according to Nate Silver’s regression models, if Montanans were asked to ban gay marriage this year, they would vote against it. Montana simply isn’t a very religious state. Only a third of the people go to Church on a regular basis –– well under the national average.

    Anti-gay campaigns don’t have too much time left in American politics.

  2. The R party apparatus has simply lost control. These are absolutely inane political moves. Appeasing a far-right, vocal minority is suicide electorally. Cool.

  3. Many R’s, TEA Party folks, and Conservatives really don’t care what you do in the privacy of your own home. The only serious opposition is to re-defining of marriage. Of course I don’t speak for them all.. Just me, and whole bunch of TP folks I know. There are no “right’s” being taken away. But each independent, yet united “state” has the right to set it’s own policies on many issues. But the citizenry can migrate into and out of whatever state, most suits their own lifestyle.

    If Montana makes Gay’s uncomfortable, move to San Fran, Key West, Vermont or Hawaii, or most major population centers in Wisconsin. I see no significant intolerance of gay’s in my very middle class, Midwestern city. Once Montana feels the “pinch” or the benefit from it’s decision it’ll adjust accordingly. Just like a business.

    If Starbucks makes lousy coffee, it’ll loose customers. If it makes Lousy Coffee but offers extra benefits to Gay employee’s will you buy the Lousy coffee? Will it gain or lose customers? Don’t be in such a hurry…America is much more Gay and Lesbian friendly than it was 10 years or 20 years ago. If you don’t quit shoving in every ones faces it could backfire. Most folks right now are much more concerned about excessive spending and Govt. out of control. Adding this Govt. control over this only hurting the Gay and Lesbian cause.

    1. Reading the first paragraph, I take it you then are in favor of taking away someone else’s rights. Yes? As they make you uncomfortable, yes? Forcing the government on someone else’s life is oaky, as you do not approve of their life, yes?

  4. Actually Urban Pioneer, making “homosexual acts illegal” is putting the government responsible for what people do in the privacy of their homes.

  5. Freedom with conditions is a very hollow argument. You can’t argue that the government is too intrusive through taxation or conducting a census and then argue that it is good for our government to regulate and criminalize clearly personal behavior. The trouble with freedom is we can all find something we don’t like about other people’s behavior but that is the beauty of freedom – we can do what we want without fear of prosecution as long as it does not harm others.

    The most troubling aspect of the current political landscape is how radicalized the Republicans are becoming. If they would focus on jobs, sound fiscal policy, improving foreign relations, and creating MORE FREEDOM they would likely find a great many people willing to support the party. However, alienating groups of people based on their free choices and then arguing that only certain types of freedom are permissible is hypocrisy at its finest. Clear thinking people see right through that.

  6. For a brief moment in time I stopped fearing the Republican party. I see that was a mistake. It greatly disturbs me to see this anti-freedom movement take hold even after the Supreme Court stood up for common sense individual rights. Where are the “Tea Partiers” now? Shouldn’t they be screaming about these blatant attacks on individual liberty? Do they want to government out of their pockets and into their bedrooms?

Comments are closed.