Montana GOP policy: Make homosexuality illegal

[Ben]

Montana GOP policy: Make homosexuality illegal
By MATT VOLZ (AP) – 4 hours ago
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?"
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[Ben]

This social conservatism bothers me. I am all for fiscal conservatism, limited government... but, again, this nutty social conservatism is inexplicable/irrational.... Plus it doesn't sound like small government to me.

[Ben]

QUOTE: '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."'

Living in Montana, well, we'd all be fucked -- ha!ha!

[russtafa]

what are they going to do break into peoples houses?

[arnie666]

An emphasis on small government and fiscal conservatism, if it was adopted by the republicans, and the differences with the tea party was resolved, would be a serious threat at this time to Obama and the democrats,in fact the media hysteria shows it is . As Obama and the democrats are themselves experiencing problems. All is not well.

Unfortunately crazies within the Republican party really do hamper it. Making homosexuality illegal, talking about masturbation being linked to cheating on your wife, are to me political positions that do great harm and are excellent red meat to the left. Funnily enough I have some sympathy for the anti porn types. Simply because I do believe porn has become too hard and extreme with a nasty atmosphere on degrading and hurting women. I also think the amount of ease to obtain it,isn't great for relationships.I have dealt with several sexual assaults on women within relationships, and I do put a small amount of blame on porn.And thinking what goes on ,on a porn set is in any way comparable to how two people who love each other behave in the bedroom.

But if they talked about it like that, and not this bible thumping emphasis,it would seem more reasonable. I think a certain amount of social conservatism, can still make a party electable, particulary in america,but there are limits, and demonising people for their sexual orientation does not belong in 2010.

But then I know the yanks take bible thumping more seriously than we do. But are for instance christine o'donnell's views the same as they were? Iam rather suspicious of the media going after comments she made in the early nineties. I think many politicians change their views on many issues over time.Iam also rather suspicious about how much fire she is drawing on both sides. And I do think some of it, has to do with her gender and the fact she isn't rich and not part of the good old boy network.

But lets remember than not all social conservatives are the same. Sarah Palin despite her social conservatism, seems to have the same position on Gay marriage as Obama, and when you take away a lot of lies told about her by the media, isn't anti gay. Not all christians hate homosexuals.

[PomonaCA]

An emphasis on small government and fiscal conservatism, if it was adopted by the republicans, and the differences with the tea party was resolved, would be a serious threat at this time to Obama and the democrats,in fact the media hysteria shows it is . As Obama and the democrats are themselves experiencing problems. All is not well.

Unfortunately crazies within the Republican party really do hamper it. Making homosexuality illegal, talking about masturbation being linked to cheating on your wife, are to me political positions that do great harm and are excellent red meat to the left. Funnily enough I have some sympathy for the anti porn types. Simply because I do believe porn has become too hard and extreme with a nasty atmosphere on degrading and hurting women. I also think the amount of ease to obtain it,isn't great for relationships.I have dealt with several sexual assaults on women within relationships, and I do put a small amount of blame on porn.And thinking what goes on ,on a porn set is in any way comparable to how two people who love each other behave in the bedroom.

But if they talked about it like that, and not this bible thumping emphasis,it would seem more reasonable. I think a certain amount of social conservatism, can still make a party electable, particulary in america,but there are limits, and demonising people for their sexual orientation does not belong in 2010.

But then I know the yanks take bible thumping more seriously than we do. But are for instance christine o'donnell's views the same as they were? Iam rather suspicious of the media going after comments she made in the early nineties. I think many politicians change their views on many issues over time.Iam also rather suspicious about how much fire she is drawing on both sides. And I do think some of it, has to do with her gender and the fact she isn't rich and not part of the good old boy network.

But lets remember than not all social conservatives are the same. Sarah Palin despite her social conservatism, seems to have the same position on Gay marriage as Obama, and when you take away a lot of lies told about her by the media, isn't anti gay. Not all christians hate homosexuals.

I just had to quote what you said. I HAD to. It was that great.

[Chief1860]

This social conservatism bothers me. I am all for fiscal conservatism, limited government... but, again, this nutty social conservatism is inexplicable/irrational.... Plus it doesn't sound like small government to me.

I can't believe it, but I totally agree with Ben on this one. Government should stay out of peoples lives. This includes Obamacare and all aspects of the nanny state.

[Ben]

I can't believe it, but I totally agree with Ben on this one. Government should stay out of peoples lives. This includes Obamacare and all aspects of the nanny state.

The Nanny State also includes bailing out the banks. That goes against capitalist orthodoxy. Because when the lender lends he -- or she -- assumes the risk. And if he or she loses, well, they incur that loss. Again, bailing out what were zombie banks goes against capitalist orthodoxy.

[trish]

Government should stay out of peoples lives

Yeah...what business does the government have telling us what fucking side of the road we have to drive on?

[bte]

A lot of times the politican that is most vocal about homosexuality is the same politican that is engaging in homosexuality themselves.