Hudak Resigning

Some of you seem to forget that traditional American values like marriage and being pro-life are part of being conservative. Those are some of the things that define it.

I don't mind a candidate who says, "I'm for traditional marriage, I'm pro-life and I don't believe in special rights for homosexuals...they should have the same rights as anyone else. Having said that, these are not issues that the gov't, especially the federal gov't, should be worried with."

I also don't recall a whole lot of conservative candidates making a big deal out of these issues. Sure...every once in a while someone will say something stupid but I don't think most conservative candidates build their campaigns around these issues. The liberal media likes to portray all conservatives as anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-same sex marriage when, in fact, that isn't the case at all. And liberals are the worst at being "anti". Liberals like to create false slogans like "pro choice", when in fact that ONLY means pro-abortion. Liberals are "pro-choice" only as long as that choice is abortion.

Too many of you buy into this crap without thinking it through.

Saying homosexuals shouldn't have rights above and beyond what anyone else has does not equate to being anti-gay. But liberals have spun it that way thus they own the bulk of the homosexual voting block by convincing them republicans are anti-gay because they believe in traditional American values like (traditional) marriage.

Another problem is that Liberals simply can not just accept tolerance and understanding. Like Bailey mentions, they have to keep pushing it one step further. I think that is when Conservatives get vocal and it all gets twisted up into..."Your just a gay hater". We don't need to give our kids the idea that being gay is the new, fresh and hip alternative.

How about the government gets out of the business of marriage? Why should those married get special preferences in the law? Quite frankly that is probably the biggest hypocrisy of the gay marriage proponents. They are not arguing for equality under the law, not they are arguing to be added to the special club. Equality? Hardly.

If you want to get married goto a church. Everything else as it relates to marriage is shorthand for contract law. God only knows why you have to buy a worthless piece of paper from the State, let alone why there are preferences in the law once you do.

And its a but funny that you say

Quote:

---

I don't mind a candidate who says, "I'm for traditional marriage, I'm pro-life and I don't believe in special rights for homosexuals...they should have the same rights as anyone else. Having said that, these are not issues that the gov't, especially the federal gov't, should be worried with."

---

But we got DOMA. Where the fed gov't basically said, all those preferences and carve outs in federal law.. well they don't apply. Nope, all those things are only for the special group of married people, which we define as one man and one women, everyone else can STFU - you are not in the club.

People love their preferences in the law, especially when they can get their neighbors to pay for them.

Equality under the law is for idiots! What is great though, are special little clubs, where if you jump through one or more government hoops, you are part of the big happy family where the state showers you with some swag - then you cheer.

Regardless of how the media spins the stance of conservatives and gay marriage, we need the limited government conservatives to say, " I support the freedom to marry whoever you wish"

I'm personally against homosexuality. I think its against nature and a perversion... But my set of morals are no more "holy'er" than a homosexual's. I have no right to tell him what is best for him or anyone else for that matter.

When it comes to morals, its best to default on the side of liberty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nynco

Can we please chose Eisenhower style conservatives and leave the social issues in the trash? The anti gay agenda is what cost the GOP elections in Co. I am sure many of you don't agree, but that is my wish.

---

Anti gay and anti abortion are cause Conservatives to lose every state.

I wish this was good news. But after reflection- Hudak was term limited. Now the dems will appoint a replacement that is not. And the recall petition will probably require restarting, as there is a time limit on the petition process. Since the legislature is not in session, the dems may be able to delay the appointment until petitions expire. I guess we need to recall them all....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jackal

I wish this was good news. But after reflection- Hudak was term limited.

---

-doesn't matter, the underlying message remains the same.

The recalls are all well and good-shows that the people still have a voice.
But what irks me is that even with the recalls the laws still stay the same.
The left seems to have sacrificed these clowns to further their agenda,doesn't matter to them that they lost their jobs-they will get shuffled to other positions useful to their cause.

We can't rest we must make our voices heard where it counts the most-at the ballot box.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jackal

I wish this was good news. But after reflection- Hudak was term limited. Now the dems will appoint a replacement that is not. And the recall petition will probably require restarting, as there is a time limit on the petition process. Since the legislature is not in session, the dems may be able to delay the appointment until petitions expire. I guess we need to recall them all....

---

Read section 3 of this
http://ballotpedia.org/Article_XXI,_...o_Constitution

Quote:

---

Resignation Filling Vacancy.
If such officer shall offer his resignation, it shall be accepted, and the vacancy caused by such resignation, or from any other cause, shall be filled as provided by law; but the person appointed to fill such vacancy shall hold his office only until the person elected at the recall election shall qualify. If such officer shall not resign within five days after the sufficiency of the recall petition shall have been sustained, the governor shall make or cause to be made publication of notice for the holding of such election, and officers charged by law with duties concerning elections shall make all arrangements for such election, and the same shall be conducted, returned and the result thereof declared in all respects as in the case of general elections.

---

It is very important they actually complete the petition as these are uncharted waters.

So am I reading it that there is still a recall election even if they resign? The next sentence there says the election only happens if they don't resign within 5 days. Is that a case for if they resign after the election is held?

Marriage is a legal contract. Legal, as in defined by statute. That makes marriage a government institution. Go to a church if that is where you choose to be married, but the license to get married was issued by some local jurisdiction that issues that license based on criteria within the state law. If a marriage is to be dissolved, papers are filed in a government court where a divorce decree is granted.

All of the positives and negatives that go along with marriage are regulated by the state. This has been true for several centuries in western society.

I do not believe that my elected representatives should spend a great deal of time legislating the institution of marriage. I also am not happy with the legal definition of marriage being changed by a few appointed judges. Redefining many traditional institutions in society is what being "progressive" is all about. Control the definition and you control the language. Control the language and you win the debate. When the debate is over the only choices left are violence or submission. To win you must know the rules of the game.

Be safe.