So Greta pushes her. “Why should people in the atheist movement support a leader for the SCA who’s frankly, worked for years for a party that has consistently opposed on of our core values?” Because she’s going to educate them, ER says. But why have you supported the party all this time, Greta says.
Well, I can tell you, it’s not a party position. It’s an individual position by some members. And it really varies by the member. I have plenty of friends and colleagues who are Republicans, the majority of them, it’s not their position. It’s really hard to stereotype…millions of people: they’re all opposed to gay rights, and everybody in the Republican party is opposed to gay rights, because that’s not true. It’s not true for me; it’s not true for other people I know. It’s not true for every republican elected official. It’s not an official Republican Party position.
Oh? Really? DOMA – how many Republicans voted against that?
From the 2008 Republican platform:
Preserving Traditional Marriage
Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.
Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation’s most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families.
Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex “marriages” licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage.
So…she wasn’t very forthright on that question, was she.
I’m still just stunned by how much better this would have come across if she’d just been like, “Yeah, the Republican mainstream is wrong on that issue, and we want to change that.”
Or how about, “Anti-choice is a betrayal of Republican values. There’s a joke going around about ‘government so small, it fits in your vagina,’ and I think that’s a really fair criticism. I know there are still Republicans who believe in real small government, in real individual freedoms – I know because I’m one of them. I think we can get those principles back into the Republican mainstream, and that’s what I’m going to try to do.”
Nothing surprising here. Just another card carrying member of the Republican party who cannot be bothered to read.
So she’s a NALT Republican? Not just for Catholics anymore.
Lovely.
It’s the old stale — “we already agree on so much” song and dance. It’s bullshit.
I have been involved in political activism for a long time. There was a photograph of me protesting the Viet Nam war on the front page of a newspaper in 1968. I was four.
Anyway it is obvious that I was not born twenty minutes ago.
All of these sleazy underhanded tactics that Rogers is pushing, I have seen before.
You know who I call the cowards, are the supposed brights who sit on the sca board. They’ve sent a lamb to the slaughter. This person may very well have secular sympathies, but she is not cut out to front the Sca, if they were interested on riding her for her contacts, they should have found another role for her.
I call the board out. It’s disgusting.
I think it’s more than a little likely that she’s a Trojan horse.
“Let’s get her in there to say stupid shit, and do stupid things, and make atheists and seculars look bad!!!11!!”
Otherwise, who the fuck thought this was a good idea? What morons did this? (These are rhetorical questions, obviously, because we know what morons did this.) I don’t need to withhold judgment to see how she does in the job, I have years of her career to look back on to see exactly what kind of deluded liar she really is.
According to Rogers on the Reddit “ask me anything” the SCA wanted her for her particular set of skills and experience and contacts, not for her Republican-ness, although the bridge-building is (she said) a bonus.
Rogers seems locked into Fox News Republican Apologist mode. And it isn’t boding well for the truth-value of the claims she is making.
It’s a farce.
I know it would be difficult for thinking rational people to do this but one has to be able to suspend the ideas that your world view includes, like avoiding contradiction, not to be hypocritical, have compassion, embrace diversity etc. If you can do this Republicans going whichever way the opportunistic wind is blowing will make perfect sense.
peter g
I’m sure that I’m not the first to comment on this in some context but doesn’t
sound as if a) mothers are not really that important, and b) two fathers should therefore be better than one? Seems the further-right party in the US is not such a champion of traditional families after all.
Big Red – Hmmm – not really, at least not if you’re familiar with the context. Just one male is enough (and in fact two are too many – just ask any Alpha), because the point is to keep the hierarchy. It’s fine for a woman to do all the nurturing and so on as long as there’s a man directing operations.
I wonder if that’s actually what repels conservatives the most: the built-in equality. No no no no no no it has to be wun man and wun woman so that there can be a superior and an inferior. Guaranteed. None of this butch-femme stuff, and don’t talk to me about equality between men and women; wun man and wun woman. In that order.