The New Texas GOP Platform – Now with More Crazy!

It gets better every election cycle.

After holding it back for a couple of weeks to let the attention die down, the Texas GOP released their shiny new 2014 platform this week and it’s a humdinger. There is probably a current conspiracy theory out there somewhere that didn’t make into the platform’s 40 pages, but if so I’m unaware of it.

If you enjoy reading legal petitions submitted by mental patients you’re in for a treat.

Question: Why does the Texas GOP consistently allow its convention to produce a platform so utterly ridiculous that few of their candidates and officials can afford to embrace it?


Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with:
Posted in Texas
202 comments on “The New Texas GOP Platform – Now with More Crazy!
  1. kabuzz61 says:

    Someone had a question, I think it was the Silly Bird, but since I don’t address that commenter directly, I will throw it out to the forum. The question being basically since I (Kabuzz) do not think the party platform means anything, why do they have it.

    Stupid tradition. Back in the day when conventions actually got things done like candidates for president worked the back rooms to try to get nominated on the first pass, vice presidential candidates were picked during convention, etc. In other words, it was an important aspect to the political process. The platforms held much more significance at that time since it was the rank and files only chance to make sure candidates and appointee’s didn’t stray from the overall core beliefs of the country.

    Nowaday’s everything is done for the media’s benefits. The convention is merely a party with every aspect of it planned. It is a waste.

    Bob Dole said in 96 “I’m not following that platform” when he was asked. That is simply the right answer and the only answer anyone can give when it comes to either party’s platform. It’s a holdover with no real teeth. Parts of it may be trotted out for political points on either side, but that’s it.

    So, the real question: Why would Chris run such a silly post??? There’s the question.

    • Anse says:

      A party without a platform is not a political party. A political party without an ideological basis to form a framework for policy positions would simply be a group of angry, seething, highly illogical morons who don’t know what they believe nor what their aims ultimately are. Come to think of it, that sort of does describe a lot of Tea Partiers, doesn’t it?

      So you think a political party should just go forth and take whatever position seems right without any guiding principle that would give the party ethical consistency? Candidates don’t need to follow a platform–just check off the right opinions on all those issue statements provided by lobbyists? You know, like the no-tax-increase pledge Grover Norquist pushed all those GOPers to sign? That oppose-abortion-at-all-costs pledge so many have agreed to for fear of not securing the support of the party base?

      Forcing candidates to take pledges upon which they will never, ever compromise, makes sense to you, but party platforms don’t?

      Do you have any clue whatsoever what you are talking about? Maybe your point is that the GOP doesn’t need a platform, because they’re gonna do whatever Focus on the Family, the oil industry, and the Tea Party tells them to do. It’s pretty obvious to everyone with a brain that this “I’m not following any platform” does NOT mean every Republican candidate is free to take positions independent of the party line. We all know that is no longer possible in the GOP.

  2. Owl of Bellaire says:

    Chris, you’ve mentioned that Dan shows up as one of the most prolific posters on the blog. Is there any way to do a word-count as well? I strongly suspect he’d show up with the lowest ratio of words-to-posts (and, in fact, of punctuation-marks-to-posts) of anyone here. kabuzz would be a bit higher, but still well below the site average. Sternn might approach something like the level of a functioning adult (ironically enough), and TThor would be a clear outlier from the rest of the conservative swarm.

    • Tuttabella says:

      I don’t know if you remember, but a while back, Chris posted a short list of the most prolific posters on his blog. I don’t know if the list was ranked, but it consisted of the following, in this order (as far as I can recall):

      Cap Sternn

      • Crogged says:


      • tuttabellamia says:

        Crogged: Cap and I were playing with the “which one does not belong on this list” question that appears on standardized tests, and you were the odd man out; OR, I was the odd LADY out, being the only lady on the list. There were several possible answers.

      • Crogged says:

        And there are some whom I wish wrote more, even though I may disagree with them. C’mon Fitty, Objv; the boring subject of party platforms needs YOU. I sort of wanted to jump in when the subject of providing funding for home schooling was brought up, I wanted to read the drafts of the Constitutional amendment rewriting Article VII Section 1.

    • Crogged says:

      And Bob Dole’s resounding victory has since led to every Republican candidate, nationally and locally, to loudly and publicly repudiate every published platform.

  3. Anse says:

    I see this little gem reappears, with the more brazenly lunatic language reorganized: “Knowledge Based Education- We oppose the teaching of values clarification and similar programs that focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority. Rather, we encourage the teaching of critical thinking skills, including logic, rhetoric and analytical science”

    It’s a contradictory statement. They oppose undermining parents’ “fixed beliefs” and yet they want the kiddos to be critical thinkers. If you are only going to reinforce fixed beliefs, you aren’t teaching critical thinking skills.

    Further down, they explicitly reject sex education that goes beyond the abstinence-only message. Am I to take this to mean that the average Texas Republican was a virgin when they were married? What a joke of a party. They explicitly reject the distribution of condoms in schools, because everybody knows the kids have no idea what sex is and we have to protect them from such knowledge, which is why Texas doesn’t get internet service and there’s no chance the kids have ever seen pornography (because responsible conservative parents keep their collection of old Hustler magazines under lock and key).

    It’s astonishing that they have offered this as a serious document.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Not contradictory, just against indoctrination.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Education *is* indoctrination.

        Education teaches a child how to become a member of the culture in which they will participate as an adult. Teaching any kind of culture is “indoctrination”. It’s just supposed to be the kind that we agree on as necessary for successful adults in American society.

        Conservatives just have fallen out of step with modern American culture. So of course they view what THEY want to teach as not being indoctrination, when everyone else recognizes it as an attempt to generate Stepford children who will remain forever mired in the 1950s.

      • Anse says:

        Your entire party is the result of generational indoctrination into the fallacious belief that lassaiz-faire capitalism is a success and can somehow be aligned with Biblical principles. If you opposed indoctrination, you would not be a social conservative.

        You know one thing I do like in this section on education? Support for kids taking their Bibles to school. I completely agree with it, and I plan to make sure my daughter has read the Bible herself. It’s not logical to reject something if you don’t know what it is. Which is why this notion of protecting the “fixed beliefs” of parents is so outrageous.

      • Anse says:

        I disagree, Owl. I get your point: perhaps the defining element of “culture” is that it is a set of values and knowledge handed down from one generation to the next. That’s what makes a culture possible. But “indoctrination” should be understood to be something a bit different: the teaching of one set of values to the determined and forced exclusion of all contradictory or competing sets of knowledge.

        The Flat-Earthers in the GOP would say that our rejection of creationism in science curriculum is “indoctrination.” But we don’t oppose the teaching of creationism. It just belongs in its proper place. English class, perhaps, where they can compare it to other creation myths.

        I’d like to see how open-minded these guys are if a school decided to put Marx’s Das Kapital on the high school reading list.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Lots of people insist that education should have, as one of its goals, producing “good citizens”. Well, that would require producing graduates who adhere to some values more than others, specifically those values which we view as part of our own nation’s ethos.

        For example, liberals seem to feel that *tolerance* is a necessary value for good citizens. Conservatives scream that any attempt to teach that homosexuals exist, have existed throughout history, and don’t generally hurt anybody, is relentless indoctrination and a leap several steps down on the slippery slope to communism and Hell.

        Indoctrination is bad when it involves coercion. If you beat a child any time he says anything negative about gays, well, yes, that’s the bad sort of indoctrination. If you point out that Johnny’s daddies are gay, and Johnny is a good kid, and we wouldn’t want to make him feel bad, and it’s okay to think in your head about whether you like or don’t like people but if we want to be grown-up we watch what comes out of our mouths because we all have to live together, well, then you’re *explaining* why your “doctrine” is important for social cohesion and, at least in this social milieu, *better* than the other choices.

        And that’s the kind of good, and necessary, indoctrination in which we all engage, with our own children if we’re parents and also with others’ if we’re teachers.

        Heck, saying “please” and “thank you” is generally produced by indoctrination, and not always of the gentler sort I describe above.

        So, Anse, I understand your wariness. I just think that “indoctrination”, while a dangerous word, doesn’t deserve only having negative associations, any more than “doctrine” itself does.

      • Anse says:

        Your definition of indoctrination is just too broad. But it’s hardly worth arguing about.

        When it comes to learning stuff, I stand by my long-held belief that there is no such thing as dangerous information. Information is empowering and is a direct threat to the kind of religious conservatism espoused by a few on this board. It’s the reason less than half the nation regularly attends church even if a sizable (yet declining) majority still describe themselves as “Christian.” Information kills faith. We’re at a turning point for humanity. Some places in the world will take longer to understand this than others. I just wait for the day when Texas Republicans realize they have more in common with the Taliban than the Founders.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Education is teaching things like reading, writing and math. Indoctrination is quite different, as Anse was trying to explain.

        Anse, who told you I am a social conservative?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Um, Anse, the vast majority of the founding fathers were Christians.

      • Anse says:

        You’re a Christian, and you’re a conservative. I didn’t pull it out of my backside.

        A quality education cannot be simplified to such straightforward subject areas. An education should make you a better person, not just a more knowledgeable one. A real education should include instruction in values, and anybody, conservative or liberal, who disagrees with that has a very poor grasp of what education should be. Our children are not robots to which we upload data. They’re thinking, feeling human beings who must be taught the values necessary to put their knowledge into practice in an empathetic, conscientious way. And yes, empathy is a profoundly important part of it. Rule of law and justice depend on it. Civilization depends on it.

        The sad thing about Christian conservatives is that they don’t believe such things can be taught outside the context of the Bible.

      • Anse says:

        P.S. I would wager that the religion of our Founders hardly resembles the faith of today’s conservative Christian. American Christianity does not worship God with nearly the same vigor that it worships the Almighty Dollar.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, I am Christian and I am conservative, a very libertarian leaning conservative that, while I oppose things like same sex marriage, I believe the states should still recognize it as a legal contrat between consenting adults.

        As for teaching values, that is where parents and family are. I don’t think you would want my values forced on your kids.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Anse, you seem to be the kind of fellow if you don’t know something or understand something, you try to put it together with ‘clues’. Christian conservatives are not what you think. We don’t act like you think. You should take some time to learn who we are instead of reiterating old, stale bigoted talking points.

      • Anse says:

        I grew up in an extremely conservative Baptist home. My father still rejects evolution; my grandmother believes women should not vote. Neither of these are extreme positions in the Christian conservative community. I spend a great deal of time around Bible literalists and politically-active Christians. I know them as well as I know myself. Some of them I love as deeply as any person can be loved. I know the Christian conservative movement quite well, thank you.

  4. Owl of Bellaire says:

    Kabuzz, you love to complain, with an authoritative sniff, that none of the rest of us “understand how the sausage is made”.

    But if political platforms are actually meaningless, kabuzz, then why do they exist in the first place?

    You are claiming that it’s vital to create sausage even though no-one is ever going to eat it. Why?

  5. kabuzz61 says:

    Revealed today that more Global Warming warnings are made up. The USA actually cooler from the 1930’s on.

    Hilldebeast (Michelle Obama’s name for her) and Bill do not in any way shape or form get along. Remember, Obama called Bill a racist.

    Obama caused a great humanitarian crisis on our borders and refuses to assist.

    The liberals are imploding, but Chris is worried about gays/GOP.

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      Buzz…I think the more important issue is that the liberals are imploding, and the Republican party is trotting out this anti-gay crap.

      If there was ever a time to just sit down and keep their mouth shut, this would be the time.

      But nope, the GOP/TP won’t be able to stop talking about gays and abortion. When the discussion rolls back around to immigration, your folks won’t be able to get through a paragraph without dropping “anchor babies” into the conversation. Welfare reform will inevitably lead to “one time I saw someone at Kroger buy filet mignon with food stamps and then drive away in an Escalade (it is always a Cadillac for some reason)”.

      As we have all known for a few years, the GOP/TP will do fine in 2014, but losing the 2016 Presidential election is going to be a bad sign.

      There is an interesting article on 538 about how voting patterns are generally locked in during a person’s early voting life.

      If you lose 2016, that is an entire generation of young folks voting for Democrats, and that is going to be a hard thing to turn around. You are banking on a bunch of young folks turning 35 and deciding they don’t want gays to get married and that they or one of their friends are “baby killers” because they had an abortion in their 20s.

      Worst than losing the young folks (because that is a foregone conclusion), the fastest growing segment of the population and the largest group of new voters are Hispanics. Lose a generation of those new Hispanic voters, and it becomes a big uphill battle.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        If the kind of unity you dream of is the “Permanent Republican Majority” of Tom Delay and his cronies, then I think we’ll be well rid of it.

    • Anse says:

      You can only believe liberalism is imploding if you get all of your information from WorldNutDaily or Newsmax. You’d think after the catastrophe that was your deeply misinformed assumptions about Romney in the last presidential election that you nuts would try to open up the rightwing sound bubble just a smidgen and let some reality in, but you’re actually closing it up tighter than ever.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      Gosh, kabuzz, when you lead with a statement as grand as “Revealed today that more Global Warming warnings are made up,” don’t you think it might be incumbent on you to provide a source, so the rest of us can bask in your hipster wisdom of knowing it before it was cool?

      But you follow noose sites rather than news sites. You’ve long since failed to have any oxygen reach your brain.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Your connection to utter fantasy and scientific ignorance is quite clear.

        And I suppose that I shouldn’t be surprised that kabuzz couldn’t do better.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        …says Dan, who scant days ago showed himself dumber than even his much-idolized Perry, when he utterly failed to provide the names of *any* federal departments he would eliminate from the budget, let alone how he’d practically and realistically deal with the programs they once encompassed.

        You can try to sass, Dan, though you fail at even that — but, in any case, you obviously can’t think. And that’s what makes you so pitiful and ridiculous a figure on these forums.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        I merely offer them to those who demonstrate that’s about the level of all that they understand. Apparently you aren’t capable of reading my longer and more civil contributions, perhaps because you demonstrate a total lack of ability and interest in offering anything similar yourself.

        What were those departments that you’d happily eliminate, again? And how would you go about making that a practical proposal that would function in the real world, rather than a fever-brained conservative pipe-dream?

        Oh, right. That might require more than three lines of text, and the use of actual punctuation. I’m sorry if the mere thought of it stressed your paltry collection of neurons. Go commiserate with the rest of the platyhelminthes.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      kabuzz, I realize that, as a modern Republican, you insist that the world that can be known and cared about ends at your property line. But such a stupendously ignoramic worldview has nothing to do with actual existence.

      1934 was, indeed, a very hot year in the United States, rating fourth behind 2012, 2006, and 1998. However, that was only in the United States, which makes up about 2% of the Earth’s total surface area.

      If we look at the entire world (a concept apparently utterly foreign to denialists, among other Republicans), 1934 ranks as the *49th* hottest year on record.

      Globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998.

      Just because some parts of the world have experience hot years in the past is not an argument against climate change. Temperature will always show variations among regions as well as from year to year. Such variations have happened in the past, and they will continue. Climate change involves the fact that, on average, when looking at the entire world, the long-term trend shows an unmistakable increase in global surface temperatures, in a way that is likely to dramatically alter the planet.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Wow, three commas and an apostrophe.

        Dan’s strictly physical writing style may be starting to exceed that of Archy (of Mehitabel fame). But it can’t hold a candle in terms of content.

        How does it feel to be beaten by a cockroach, Dan?

  6. Anse says:

    Years from now, when our children are having children, my grandkids are going to ask me: “Gramps, were you ever one of those psycho Republicans back in the old days?” And I’m going to say, with great relief, that I was not.

    You catch it right there in the Preamble and it never lets up:

    “It is our solemn duty to protect life and develop responsible citizens.”

    If they really want to politically engineer the Texas population into being responsible citizens, they need to stop clinging to crap that doesn’t work. Gay conversion therapy? Abstinence-only education? To a Republican, “develop responsible citizens” means kicking the inferior human specimens to the curb. It means leaving the poor at the door of the ER to die. It means abortion is never an option–they’d rather starve the inferior ones out. It’s more like freedom that way or something.

    What a joke of a party. What a disgusting statement. Noam Chomsky was right. The Democrats caved to Wall Street while the Republicans have simply ceased being a serious political party.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Of course you will claim that you were always a proud socialist and you always wanted a health care system like the VA, leaving people to die in the streets to save some money. After all, from each according his ability, to each according his need.

      • Anse says:

        So let us ignore the fact that nobody in the WORLD has a free market health care system, and a great many of those nations provide excellent health care. Whatever. It’s the roundabout circle of GOP nonsense. At some point you have to get off and get your wits together.

        “Abortion is not healthcare.” Tell that to Savita Halappanavar. The truth is that most Republicans I know don’t even believe half the garbage in this document. The GOP has evolved into the Troll Party of the Internet Age. They issue this pablum without regard for basic sense or dignity.

      • Anse says:

        It would be far and away superior than putting together a platform that was probably written by every terrified and angry and senile retirement home citizen who thinks the world went off the rails when women got the vote. This platform is offensive to anybody with a functioning sense of reason.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Republicans claim to be all about fiscal responsibility. But they refuse to make investments — such as sex education, more available contraception and/or abortion, prenatal care, early-childhood health and education, counseling for poor families, development funds for poor communities, and so on and on and on — which offer obvious future reductions in far more expensive programs — welfare for those children when grown, policing against criminal activity, court costs, prison infrastructure and staffing for those driven into crime, and also on and on and on.

        For Republicans, it’s not about the power of the silk purse. It’s about being able to wear the sow’s ears it was made from.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Contraception is widely available, Owl. Just scoot on down to the local drug store. You can teah your children about sex and consequences. Step up and take some responsibility for once.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        By my count, Sternn made it all of 21 words into my comment.

        I suppose I should be grateful that his endurance was up to double digits.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      I hope you have grandchildren. Your daughter may decide to kill/terminate all her pregnancies or your son’s wife so you won’t be able to slam the GOP to anyone.

      • Anse says:

        Like all Republicans, you insist that we have a small government, and the standard for “small” is that it must be small enough to fit in a woman’s uterus. Don’t worry about my daughter. For all I know she might be gay. She isn’t old enough to know about sex yet, but I’m thankful that by the time she is, she won’t have to endure the same injustice that those who came before her did.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Small government doesn’t mean so small that you can just go out and kill innocent people because you find them inconvenient.

      • John Galt says:

        No, you want a government just small enough to ensure that those children are born, but not large enough to help them once they’re out of the womb.

      • CaptSternn says:

        John, just because I don’t believe it should be legal for your neighbor to kill you if they find you inconvenient doesn’t mean I want to pay your bills and raise your children.

      • Anse says:

        We might solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies, but Republicans oppose every effort we have to do that. But that’s not really the point anyway. The point is to return to a time when women are out of the workforce and completely dependent on men for everything.

        Whatever problems Democrats may have in delineating a specific ideology upon which to base the party platform, one thing is for sure: it will never be 1950 again, no matter how badly Republicans want it to be.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Apparently Anse doesn’t realize that birth control is available these days.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        “quasi-sexual liberal”? That doesn’t even make any sense, Dan.

        Not that you ever really do.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        To get ahead, you’d have to actually catch up first.

        And that doesn’t seem at all likely to happen, given your current glacial rate of change.

      • Anse says:

        Yes, birth control exists, but god forbid we ever tell the kids that. They’re supposed to be completely ignorant of the existence of condoms until they graduate high school, apparently.

      • CaptSternn says:

        You can tell your kids whatever you want about contraception, Anse. But you have no business pushing your agenda on the kids of others. That’s what the left can never accept, they have to be all up in everybody else’s business.

      • John Galt says:

        Sterrn, can you tell me what you think about the efforts of the conservative theocrats to add fairy tales like intelligent design to public school science classes? That definitely seems like pushing an agenda to me.

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, John, I can’t. I am not part of that camp.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        JG, most are not part of the camp. You seem to focus on a very, very small fraction of people and broad brush everybody else with their ideas. It doesn’t bother me. It only makes me think your lazy.

  7. desperado says:

    Here’s how smart the Tea Party types are. They threw out Eric Cantor because of his supposed support for “amnesty.” Cantor’s replacement, Kevin McCarthy;

    “…hails from California’s 23rd congressional district, an area that is 35% Latino, and where the local business community depends on immigrant labor to pick local crops.

    …has said that he favors extending legal status to undocumented immigrants, if not full citizenship.

    …was the first member of House GOP leadership to support legal status for undocumented immigrants.
    …co-sponsored the ENLIST Act, with fellow Californian Rep. Jeff Denham, which would have provided a pathway to citizenship for certain undocumented youth who serve in the military.”

    Smooth move, Tea Party/

    • CaptSternn says:

      Eric Cantor is being replaced by David Brat. Has yet to be seen if the GOP establishment is getting the message.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn, I realize your knee jerks long before your brain engages, but Desperado was referring to Cantor’s replacement as House Majority Leader, not as Representative for one specific district in Virginia.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Has yet to be seen if the GOP establishment is getting the message, Owl. Work on your reading comprehension.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        My reading comprehension is fine, Sternn. Perhaps you should concentrate on writing something worth reading, and at higher than an elementary-school level of thought and expression.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Desp, you so miss the point but that is in no way unusual.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        And kabuzz runs in to suck devotedly at Sternn’s balls in passing.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Hey, most adults understand that a conversation involves more than effectively hitting the “+1” or “Like” button — or, to take a more rural metaphor perhaps popular among the yokels who dominate the current GOP, sitting around the country-store porch going, “Ayup, ayup, ayup.”

        Educated adults with active minds may agree: but they then go on to actually reflect on, expand upon, or slightly refocus what was said before, to add to the collective discourse.

        Simple agreement is for slaves, children, and pets. Perhaps kabuzz’s avatar is aptly chosen.

    • John Galt says:

      It is you who are missing the point, kabuzz. VA republicans opted for a novice candidate who may or may not win in November over the sure thing. In doing so they have ensured Cantor will not be the majority leader in the House come Jan. 2015. The person who (most likely) will be has far more reason to accommodate immigration reform than Cantor ever did. The voters of that district shot themselves in the foot, and their nationwide brethren are busy reloading.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Just because a person is of hispanic descent doesn’t mean they support criminals or want amnesty for illegal aliens. More likely they would not support such things since they or their ancestors took the time and effort to come here legally, abide by the laws and work for their citizenship. Amnesty would simply throw all that in their faces. Not to mentioon people of hispanic descent tend to be private people, and democrats are getting all up in their personal and private lives now.

      • Turtles Run says:

        What amnesty?


        We were here first.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, we were, and are still here. What was your point?

  8. Turtle74 says:

    Because the purpose of the platform isn’t to inform, it’s to intimidate.

    “We’re the Texas GOP. We’re here, we’re heavily armed, we’re crazy, we don’t like *you*, and we’re here to take your rights away. What are you going to do about it?”

  9. kabuzz61 says:

    We have an Obama made humanitarian crisis on our borders. Children being dumped at the border to come into the USA. Many cases of scabies, tuberculosis and other maladies as chicken pox. Our border agents are in fear of bringing these diseases to their homes and families. Military resources set aside for soldiers are being used. Perry has to activate Texas Guard troops and Boehner wants Obama to send our military down there.

    Obama has finally said that he didn’t expect this. (dummy)

    They are not being allowed through except for those that sneak through disease and all but again our tax money has to kick in to mitigate the issue.

    With this real crisis going on Chris is concerned about the Texas GOP Platform. Unbelievable.

    • lomamonster says:

      When Yellowstone blows and the Mexicans don’t let us flee to safety across the border. your pompous tone will change. Concerning the great humanitarian crisis you have described, it has existed throughout Texas history and many presidents. That you are presently alarmed by it and blaming Obama for it is ludicrous…

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Apparently you have not watched the news articles. Go on and blindly protect the empty suit as this children get sicker and sicker and finally sent back home. You are a cold hearted man.

  10. It’s really too bad the Texas Democratic Party can’t come up with enough legitimate candidates to seriously challenge the Texas GOP. In a more competitive political environment both parties might actually be forced to advance platforms with some minimal degree of internally consistent political philosophy. Oh, well. The governor’s got great hair, so at least he’s got that going for him.

    • Turtles Run says:

      It is not so much the Democrats do not put up great candidates as it is the state leans very right. Most of the Democrats that ran against Perry would have been good governors but the far right holds a disproportionate amount of clout in the state. That is how Rick Perry and Ted Cruz can count on easy victories in the state but their Texas message does not garner the same response.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Yes Turtles! The sign of a bad sportsman. I am positive if there was a viable, strong democratic candidate, it would be a great race. Problem is, Texas is center right and the dem’s put people up that are hard left. Life Wendy Davis. Her only accomplishment is making sure killing babies keeps going.

      • Turtles Run says:

        If Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, and Dan Patrick are your examples of center right the I would suggest you are more delusional than I imagined. You and the rest of the tp gang demonstrate daily that the positions take have no resemblance to moderate policies.

      • CaptSternn says:

        And if you don’t see that democrats like Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Wendy Davis are not far left extremists, Turtles, then you are more delusional than any of the rest of us could have imagined.

      • Turtles Run says:

        I did not realize Pelosi and Reid have run for state office because that is what we are talking about.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Ted Cruz was not running for a state office, so it is you that included the federal government. But at least you do recognize those people, including Davis, as being far left extremists. Maybe there is hope for you after all.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        What babies?

      • I think you miss the point — Texas is a center-right states. Voters are going to vote for the person closest to their view. When you have a hard right candidate against a hard left candidate in a center-right state, the hard right wins because he/she is closer to the voters.

        Put differently — you and I are playing a game, the winner of which is the one who comes closest to guessing a number between 1 and 10. You guess 2. I guess 9. The number is 6. I win. When the Dems quit guessing 2 and start guessing 4, they win.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Blah blah. Cappy. Blah blah. I take great comfort in knowing that the only thing you have is twisting peoples words or pretending they said something they didn’t it just demonstrates the substance in your argument or rather delusional ranting.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Sure, Turtles, just like you so often try to twist my words and claim that I blamed the 2008 economic crash on the 2010 PPACA. Maybe you should deal with that beam in your own eye.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Most in the to are paranoid freaks. Hence all the Cappy – you were asked to prove your claim that the Democrats caused the 2007 economic crash and your reply was a link concerning to such proof was about the aca passed in 2010, then yes I will make point out you stupidity. I can repost the entire conversation again to prove my point. Or would you like to clearly state which laws that the Democrats passed that caused that economic crisis laws that the GOP had nothing to do with.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Should read:
        Cappy – you were asked to prove your claim that the Democrats caused the 2007 economic crash and your reply was a link concerning to such proof was about the aca passed in 2010, then yes I will make point out you stupidity. I can repost the entire conversation again to prove my point. Or would you like to clearly state which laws that the Democrats passed that caused that economic crisis laws that the GOP had nothing to do with.

      • CaptSternn says:

        What you mean is that you can post what you created in your own mind, but you will not link back to the actual discussion. If you would, everybody would see you are full of … stuff that stinks. But in reality, “the only thing you have is twisting peoples words or pretending they said something they didn’t it just demonstrates the substance in your argument or rather delusional ranting.”

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Perhaps *you* should prove him wrong by linking to the discussion, Sternn.

        Or perhaps you won’t, because it wouldn’t help you.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy thread

        5:15 PM on October 10, 2012
        The “job creators” are throwing a fit if their guy isn’t elected President. Probably will be held up as a hero to the right-wing.

        David Siegel, CEO of Westgates Resorts, threatened employees with lay-offs if Obama is re-elected. What a great love for democracy this man has. I wonder if his employees must call him “Lord Siegel”.
        5:46 PM on October 10, 2012
        It’s not a threat, it is reality. Through things like Obamacare and coming tax hikes, inflation and a stagnant economy with higher energy prices, companies will have no choice.

        Just remember, when democrats gained control, the economy was growing at 3.9% and unemployment was 4.6%. The left asks us if we want to go back to that, while they have given us these past six years od recession, massive deficits and high unemployment.
        9:35 PM on October 10, 2012
        Please provide one study or economic report that claims the economic downturn is due to the Democrats as you claim?

        This guy Siegel is a d-bag and you are so partisan that you will defend an assault on our election process if it serves your political preferences.

        Please spare us your BS when you try to talk about protecting voting integrity, individual freedom, and liberty. You respect none of those things.
        9:49 PM on October 10, 2012
        “Please provide one study or economic report that claims the economic downturn is due to the Democrats as you claim?”


      • CaptSternn says:

        Link to the actual discussion, Turtles, not your edited make-believe.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Why don’t you Cappy? I am not the one with a history BS.

        Feel free and prove me wrong.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Why would I bother? You seem to be the only one that ever saw what you claim.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Your history clearly demonstrates that you continuously make remarks like this one. Now are you going to tell us that the reply to my question is a fake? Surely you know if you would ever make such an anise claim that I presented.

  11. lomamonster says:

    Space Exploration! How curious…

  12. goplifer says:

    By the way, via a commenter, this proposed platform from a group of Texas Republicans would cover the basics without all noise. This is pretty good.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Looks like a good start, a good base document to work with.

    • Gage Creed says:

      “We support the distribution of educational funds in a manner that they follow the student to any school, whether public private, or home school.”
      Sending public funds to private schools can be debated but I’ve just got to flatly disagree with funding home schooling.This past year, on average, Texas spent about $9,000 per student. Are we just supposed to just cut a check to these parents who may or may not be teaching their children so that they can schedule their Caribbean cruise?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Gage, there is a better reason to oppose that point. If government funds are used to support private or home schooling, the left can use that as an excuse to control what is and what is not taught or allowed or required.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern says…”the left can use that as an excuse to control what is and what is not taught or allowed or required.”

        Yes, because here in Texas, it is the left that is making goofy decisions about what is and is not taught in school.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Actually Gage, HISD spends about $.31 of every dollar on the kids. The rest fund administration.

      • CaptSternn says:

        HT, that “whooshing” sound was the point going over your head … again.

        If you send your kids to public schools, the politicians, the beauracrats, will dictate what they are or are not taught. If you want them taught differently, you send them to private schools or you home school them.

        Now, if you home school, and you take public funds for doing so, it becomes a public school and people like me can come up in your home and dictate what you will and will not teach your children. I will be all up in your business, micromanage aspects of your private life in your very own home and over yourself, your spouse and your children.

        Does that idea appeal to you? Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Think very carefully before you answer, or if you even want to respond, because that is the world the way liberals and democrats want it to be. Example, the PPACA. You see, the power to do that has already been established and upheld by the supreme court.

        It will not always be the far left like Obama, Pelosi and Reid hold that power in their hands. Republicans will have the majority again, some day. Better hope it is us libertarian leaning tea party types that are in control of the GOP when that happens. So, what kind of world are you creating for your children and their children?

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        No whoooshing at all…just interesting that you pointed out fear of the “the left” controlling what is taught in school here in Texas…it is the constant (and normally wrong) drumbeat that is tiring.

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, HT, still missing the point. I oppose public funding for private and home school because that would give the left an excuse to butt in and control them as they do with public schools.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        It is the right of all parents to try to teach abject stupidity to their children, but not their right to have the government subsidize them for doing it.

      • Given that I actually wrote that particular point myself, let me explain how I would envision it working.

        Money is allocated to school districts by the state, based upon student population.

        Students attending a public school outside the district in which they reside have 90% of that money follow them.

        Students attending an accredited private school get a sum equal to 80% of the allocated dollars.

        Students being home-schooled using an accredited curriculum get a sum equal to 60% of the allocated dollars.

        Given the variety of generally recognized accreditation bodies out there, it would be likely that most parents would be able to find a curriculum or school that is consistent with the values they seek to impart to their students. And, of course, an accredited school or program would have have sufficient record keeping requirements that it would be possible to document what the curriculum is and that the students are completing it.

        Now you may ask what the deal is with the carrying percentages. That is easy.

        1) Given that a mandate is being placed upon the school district to handle the funding for all students’ education, this provides a compensation mechanism for them.

        2) The status of private schools is easier to document than is the status of a home-school program.

        3) A home-school does not have the overhead of a brick & mortar school.

        And notice, I’m not putting in place major state oversight other than the documentation of where the student is enrolled and that the curriculum is an accredited one.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I do understand your point, Greg. I was neutral on things like vouchers or refunding parents money if they do not send their kids to public schools. They are not using the system, why should they have to pay for it. But a couple of things were brought up in such a discussion, people without children are paying into the system, but not using it, so why should they have to pay? And as I was trying to point out to HT (he used to go by the handle of Houston Traveler), if a school is being publicly funded, is becomes a public school.

        If a religious school accepts public funding, becoming a public school, the same rules about teaching religious courses would apply as with any other public school, same with home schooling. People on the left would take it to court on the “separation of church and state” claim, and they have already won that battle. There could be no school or teacher led prayers, no teaching religious courses, Bible, Torah, Quran or other.

        I don’t see how that could be avoided, and that’s why I won’t and can’t support something like that on a political platform or support having it done at all. I am not exactly a republican, at least not traditionally. I refused to vote for the GOP in 2002, 2004 and 2006. Not that I voted for democrats, I voted for the Libertarian Party.

        I agree that the Texas GOP Platform is a bit of a mess, even pointed out a contradiction that others missed. I agree with you that it could use a real make-over, to be simplified and shorter. I want to support the Texas GOP and their platform. I would like to make it much more like the LP Platform, minus the abortion and isolationist points of the LP Platform.

        You are doing good work, sir. Much more active than myself. Thank you for showing up and introducing your ideas. Please keep it up. Maybe I will start visiting your blog as well.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Silly Bird speaks from experience.

      • John Galt says:

        “HISD spends about $.31 of every dollar on the kids. The rest fund administration.” – Kabuzz

        Do you just make this stuff up? Just invent numbers that seem to support your feverish delusions? The facts are out there and pretty easy to find. In 2013-14, HISD spent $33 million of it’s $1.9 billion budget on “Central Administration”. That is 1.7 cents per dollar, or one-twentieth of the number you made up.

        $1.2 billion was spent on instructional activities, $400 million on operations, which includes the electricity bill, food services, and building maintenance, and $263 million on debt service. All of these seem pretty relevant to educating children in safe and modern buildings.

    • CaptSternn says:

      You really went out of your way to twist it as much as possible. And not even allowing comments there under that mess. Having just read it here on your blog shows how much you are twisting the platform. Sadly, people will probably read your entry at the Chron and take it at face value without actually reading the platform. That’s generally how the left works anyway, just run with emotion.

      FYI, the extremists are the standard democrats these days.

    • Crogged says:

      Abolishing several Federal agencies, the national bank and trying to change the world monetary system aren’t ‘extremist’?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Which federal agencies would you abolish, DanMan? (Can you do better than Perry with your answer?)

        And how would you bridge between the situation as it is now, with the programs run by those agencies within the federal government, and whatever future utopia you envision which lacks those agencies? Which functions disappear, which devolve to the states, and which simply involve a reorganization of federal responsibilities?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        And, as we might expect, Dan is a feckless coward when asked for specific points rather than the sort of long-winded, meandering rants for which he is best known.

  13. CaptSternn says:

    Interesting read. There are definately a couple of things I disagree with, desecration of the U.S. Flag, other flags and symbols must be protected as free speech and the support for “counseling” homosexuals is wrong.

    But somebody should do some proof reading before making the platform public. Early into it the Texas GOP calls for the repeal of the War Paowers Act, but toward the end it calls for enforcing the War Powers Act. Should have stuck with the 2012 wording towards the end on that point.

  14. There is, in fact, a movement down here to do a lot of platform reform. Plenty of Republicans, from the party chairman on down think the platform is a mess. Personally, I’m soliciting input here —

    • johnofgaunt75 says:

      While I think having general standards is fine, for me, the interesting items are the positons on individual policies. It is all well and good to extol “I love freedom.” or “I believe in a person’s right to own personal property.” Who is going to argue against those?

      But where the rubber hits the road is on the individual policy positions. And while touching on all policy positions is most certainly impossible, I think it is a good idea to argue and take a general stand on some of the more pressing and important issues in today’s society.

    • goplifer says:

      You have a bigger problem to solve before you can enforce any rationality around the platform process. Call it the ‘Dan Patrick Dilemma.’

      There is a thought process left over from the days when the party was in a seemingly hopeless minority position that you can’t afford to alienate anyone. What that means now is that there is simply no will to rein in the antics of bizarre, outlandish characters, no matter how offensive their rhetoric.

      The psychology that has produced, in escalating sequence, Steven Hotze & Terry Lowry, Steve Stockman, Rick Perry, Louie Gohmert, Ted Cruz and now Dan Patrick will make it impossible to do anything about the psychos who overwhelm the platform process. Until the party acquires the cahones to say “no” to its craziest extremists at some level, any level, the platform will remain a minor concern.

      • My point is that there is now a critical mass of Republicans — including activists — who are ready, willing, and able to produce something better. My contribution is to try to take something that already exists and which is already vetted by a very conservative state party (Utah) and use it as a template for a shorter document that unites rather than divides. Given how a small (now defeated) faction here in Harris County misused the platform last year (, I think we will find great support for change.

      • goplifer says:

        Greg, if you’re right that would be very good news and it would have positive implications all up and down the chain.

        Respectfully, though, I’m skeptical. It’s much more likely in my opinion that the fight for a somewhat reasonable platform will merely confirm who really controls the levers in the Texas GOP. I’m rooting for you.

  15. johnofgaunt75 says:

    I haven’t read the entire document yet but found this interesting:

    “A free enterprise society unencumbered by government interference or subsidies.”

    Is the Texas Republican Party calling for an end to the Depletion Allowance or the special exemptions given to Master Limited Partnerships? Perhaps someone who has read the entire document can help. I would be interested to know (especially given how important those subsidies are to the economy of Texas).

  16. johnofgaunt75 says:

    Why the strict adherence to the “Declaration of Independence?”

    While great prose, the document itself is legally meaningless. I mean, half of it revolves around blasting the British monarch. So the Texas Republicans are saying that we must continue to show contempt to the monarch and government of the UK?

  17. CaptSternn says:

    There are things I do not like about the Texas GOP Platform, but just a wild guess and that would be that you agree with this platform …

    Click to access 2012-platform.pdf

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      Stern…I think any rational person would read each of the parties’ platforms and immediately recognize a whole boatload of fluffy, meaningless, platitudes.

      However, I think a rational person also would probably recognize just a tiny bit more crazy and a little bit more meanness in the GOP platform.

      • Turtles Run says:

        To sum it up Cappy is OK with other people losing their rights because for them these rights are simply privileges.

        You got a great catch there Tutt. I wonder how he would react if someday someone decided his rights were simply privileges to be denied at will? Rhetorical question we know the answer.

      • CaptSternn says:

        You first have to understand the differences between rights, privileges and entitlements, Turtles.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy. I am not the one arguing that rights are privileges. That honor goes to you. May I suggest a course in constitutional law because you have zero understanding of that document. Because Marriage has been declared a right for decades by the SCOTUS.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        It might be helpful to provide 3 columns:


        With examples of each under each column.

      • CaptSternn says:

        We have the right to keep and bear arms, to free speech and freedom of religion. We are entitled to our benefits, such as social security and medicare, to be paid what we earn and agreed on. We have the privilege of driving vehicles on public roads if we meet all the conditions of having that privilege.

      • Turtles Run says:

        So how does marriage fall into the privilege category even though it has been ruled a right?

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Ah! Homer comes to justify. All state conventions are nuts. Both sides. Apparently Homer, you aren’t as rational as you think.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Come on buzz….”encourage the freedom of farmers, ranchers, and producers to be able to raise and promote all livestock, wildlife and other protected species for conservation, consumption, and economic development.”

        Really? Free to raise bald eagles, polar bears, and Asian elephants for consumption? Come on.

        I think we have plenty of idiocy in both platforms…but reparative conversion therapy for gay folks?

        The freedom loving and personal rights protecting GOP want mandated pre-marital counseling and a limit to the reasons that free men and women can get divorced, but hey, we want the gov’t out of our personal lives.

        I mean the Democrats have crazy normal policy positions, they didn’t go searching for unrelated goofy topics to add in for no reason. The GOP took their normal crazy policy positions and then went fishing for more.

        Hey…however, I am pleased that despite loud and strong opposition, the GOP for the first time in memory decided not to say that homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, this time around, homosexuals just are not acceptable. So….progress?

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Homer, I haven’t read a party platform. Either side. I saw how the sausage was made when I was very involved in party politics. Been to a couple of state conventions and surrounding the main floor are all the committees sorting through the regions approved resolutions. If they add up to a plurality, they go in. But it is meaningless. It is not the mindset of the GOP as a whole but a faction of people that had the wherewithal to mobilize their views in the regions. It is politics 101. I know it and Chris knows it. You apparently don’t know it.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz…I appreciate your insight…If I understand it correctly, it seems that it is only the loud, participative, and influential folks in the GOP who don’t like gay folks.

        Got it now. Thanks.

        You know, the scenario you describe is exactly how goofy things like the Gibson Guitar issue and raising polar bears for consumption gets in there.

        However, the debate over what to say about homosexuals is long, involved, and has been going on for years. This isn’t a tiny faction of folks. These are your party leaders who agree with that crap in your platform.

        The issue of a “covenant marriage” is something that lots of folks believe in on your side of the aisle, and it has even been knocked around these boards a few times. Your freedom loving folks would like to restrict the reasons free people can get divorced.

        So yes, some goofiness is because the process is goofy. Some of the goofiness is because the GOP positions are scary.

      • CaptSternn says:

        HT, very large portions of the DNC base are against same sex marriage. So it isn’t just conservatives or republicans. Even the far left State of California voted against it.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern….reparative conversion therapy is not gay marriage. Gays tearing at the fabric of society is not gay marriage. Homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle is not gay marriage. Prohibiting legal rights of gay partners is not gay marriage (seriously…even against civil unions…there is no other way to characterize that as anything other than mean and bigoted).

        Lots of folks on the left are against gay marriage (and they are wrong), but the GOP is special, and rather than just privately disapproving of gay marriage, your folks go out of their way to carve out special places in their platform, and even worse make legislation, about restricting the rights and privileges of a group of people.

      • CaptSternn says:

        There are no restrictions on their rights, they just aren’t allowed some privileges in some states. We have been over this many times over, and the DNC base votes gainst same sex marriage just about every time they get the chance.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        So the GOP doesn’t hide their views and that’s bad. The DNC does and that’s good.

        Okay, Got it.

        You can hammer the homosexual nail all you want, but when a plurality follow God’s lead and view homosexuality as a deviant behavior and abhorrent to God, well, they have their rights also. You just can’t seem to grasp that. I do not care if you are gay. I will not interfere with your gayness. If you ask me to approve of your homosexuality, I can’t do that.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        I really despise this argument because it mirrors the argument used to defend anti-miscegenation laws.

        After the “protect the racial blood” argument fell out of style given, you know, those silly Nazis, anti-miscegenation laws were defended on the basis that “Hey, this isn’t discrimination. Everyone is equal. White people can marry white people and black people can marry black people. What you are asking for is a ‘special right’ to marry outside of your race…which we all know is a sin because God wants the races seperated after mankind tried to unite as one in the Tower of Babel.”

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        yes, stern…we have been over it…and at least a few Supreme Court justices and I would argue that their rights are being restricted.

        Your, “they just aren’t allowed some privileges” would seem a bit less than a human characterization of not allowing folks to get married.

        Even if it were just some minor privilege, the idiocy is still astounding.

        Hey, the Baptists in Texas government decide we are not going to let Catholics obtain driver’s licenses. Becoming Catholic is a choice, you aren’t born that way. Good Catholics go to Mass, and they drink at Mass, and drinking and driving shouldn’t happen, so Catholics should be given driver’s licenses. They could cause car crashes and kill children. We need to protect children from Catholics having driver’s licenses.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz…how does gay marriage affect your rights?

        No one is stopping you from finding gay people abhorrent and deviant.

        It seems the GOP doesn’t hide their views and is letting their private religious views dictate public policies and law.

        Democrats seem to be able to survive without letting their private religious views about homosexuality impact laws and proposed constitutional amendments to restrict the rights and privileges of gay folks.

        So yeah, it is a good thing.

      • Tuttabella says:

        HT, I’m surprised you haven’t figured out that with Cap, just forego the word “right” with respect to same-sex marriage, replace it with “privilege,” and you will be free and clear.

        He’s okay with gays being given the “privilege” to marry. Just don’t call it a “right.”

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Tutt…I have figured it out. It is just that his interpretation of right doesn’t seem to align with other folks’ interpretation, including at least a few SC justices.

      • CaptSternn says:

        75, you are confused, or trying to confuse the issue. The anti-miscegenation laws really did infringe on a person’s rights. Natural born citizens would be stripped of their citizenship and imprisoned. People would be imprisoned just for cohabitating. That is in no way similar to simply not having a state recognize a marriage.

      • CaptSternn says:

        HT, Tutt is correct, rights, entitlements and privileges have different meanings. Some say they think health care is a right, but they are meaning to say they think it is owed to them, an entitlement. It is already a right, you can have as much of it as you want, can afford and somebody is willing to sell. We have the right to keep and bear arms, doesn’t mean I am entitled to have them given to me if I can’t afford them.

      • vivalagalgo says:

        Party platform planks are meaningless? So…why do they bother?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        HT, I forgot to add: Don’t even THINK of calling same-sex marriage, or any kind of marriage, for that matter, an ENTITLEMENT. That will get you in some major hot water. Not that you care. 🙂

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern…assuming the Supreme Court agreed with you (which they didn’t), you are arguing that the State of Virginia (or Texas) should have the ability to refuse to allow White folks marry Black folks as long as they didn’t put Black and White folks in jail for cohabiting.

        There are times when some rationality should come into play when discussing states’ rights.

        You get to have these discussions when you are a 19 year old college student bouncing philosophies around with other 19 year old goofballs, but you are talking about real people and real people’s lives at this point.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, HT, we are talking about real people. Glad you caught onto that bit. Rights were being infringed, they are not being infringed now.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        HT, actually, that’s exactly what this blog is about — a bunch of people bouncing ideas off each other. It’s purely theoretical. It’s not as though we are a group of legislators.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Our words and exchanges have about the same effect as those of a bunch of 19 year-old college students. They sit at a table in the dining hall, or in the dorm, bickering with each other. We sit at our computers, bickering with each other. And yes, they and we do vote, for the most part. That’s where the “real people” come in.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Can the withholding of a privilege be considered a violation?

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern…Justice Warren and a few other folks kind of disagree with you on this one.

        But hey, rock on with your bad self.

        Wait…just a quick pause before we leave this.

        I believe you would hate the thought of Virginia refusing to give marriage licenses to inter-racial couples. You would think that is all kinds of wrong, and you would speak loudly against it.

        If that is true, how do you wrap your head around the position that Virginia should have the ability to refuse to issue marriage licenses to inter-racial couples?

        I don’t see why it has to be an either/or issue.

        Sometimes going 90% hog is better than going whole hog.

        Why is it not possible to go with, “States’ rights are really, really important, practically sacrosanct, but let’s put some small parameters here when we are talking about x, y, and z”.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        The problem is Tutt…we are not goofball 19 year olds who don’t know any better, and strict adherence to a philosophic model has no real repercussions. We all should know better.

        Further, folks here really seem to like voting for folks who put these ideas into legislation that greatly affects real live people.

        Withholding a privilege would actually be viewed as a violation. If Texas decided not to let Catholics drive, it would violate CRA ’64 and ’91 because discrimination on religious grounds would be forbidden.

        Gay folks are not protected by the CRA.

        However, according to the GOP platform, if I work at the DMV in Podunkville, TX (population 17), and my religious beliefs include the belief that Catholics should not be allowed to drive, I can refuse to issue a driver’s license to them. To do otherwise would violate my religious beliefs.

        Since I’m the only one working at the DMV in Podunkville, the good Catholics of Pudunkville, have to take the day off work, drive (illegally) 100 miles to Middleofnowhere, TX to get a driver’s license.

      • CaptSternn says:

        There are restrictions on states via the 14th amendment.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Your definition of “rights” does not match the actual definition of “rights” under current Constitutional law.

        Oh…that’s right…you have shown time and time again you reject the entire concept of Constitutional law as currently standing in the United States.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        There are restrictions on states via the 14th amendment.

        Indeed. There are. Equal protection clause.

        Which will eventually lead to the declaration that it is unconstitutional to deny marriage rights to gay people.

      • CaptSternn says:

        We will see, 75. It does need to get on up to the supreme court already. But marriage license will still be privileges.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy – You can call them whatever you want but the SCOTUS ruled that marriage is a right protected by the constitution so states have no reason to deny SSM.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Absolutely it is a right, Turtles. Two people of the same sex can have a ceremony, get married, tell people they are married, live together as a married couple and they won’t be stripped of their citizenship, be imprisoned or even fined. The privilege of having the state recognize it is another matter.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Marriage is a fundemental right.

        Read the following:

        The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923)

        Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)

        “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967)

        “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987)

        And there are more. The Supreme Court has said and has found, over and over, that marriage is a fundemental right and, even when they don’t use those exact words, they apply the strict scrutiny test which only applies to fundemental rights.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Two people of the same sex can have a ceremony, get married, tell people they are married, live together as a married couple and they won’t be stripped of their citizenship, be imprisoned or even fined. The privilege of having the state recognize it is another matter.

        By this “logic,” a state could arrest and assault people for protesting or saying things they don’t like. Even though freedom of speech is a fundemental right, it is a “priviledge” for the state to recognize it.

        Makes ZERO sense and is absolute nonsense legally.

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, 75. That gets back to stripping people of their citizenship, arresting and imprisoning them That would violate their rights. But the state doesn’t have to publish your speech.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Give me a break. You cannot exercise your right to be married without the state recognizing the marriage. Otherwise, legally, the marriage is worthless and meaningless. Inheritance rights, rights under health care, rights to children all depend on the recognation of the marriage by the state.

        Seriously, if this is the type of argument people arguing against gay marriage have reduced themselves to, this is going to happen a lot faster than I thought.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Maybe you haven’t been aroung here long enough, 75, because I believe the states should recognize same sex marriage as a legal contract between consenting adults. I believe the same thing for polygamy and group marriages. I won’t support such things, but they do me no harm.

        Inheritence can be done with a will, children through adoption, there is medical power of attorney.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        And if there is no will, trust, etc., there is something called the laws of intestacy and they control. Marriage and the recognation of the marriage by the state matters a lot in the laws of intestacy. That is why marriage is critical.

        But I am glad you support some rights of gay people to marry in this country.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        HT is taking the smart route here — focusing solely on privileges — and not mixing apples and oranges (rights and privileges) — because then it devolves into an argument about the difference between the two.

        I’d say the state must have a valid reason to withhold a privilege — blind people should not be granted the privilege to drive, for example — otherwise, to withhold a privilege for a reason as arbitrary as the gender of the people involved would be a violation of Equal Protection.

        The people involved WOULD have to fit a certain definition of marriage — there has to be a certain “intimacy” — not necessarily sexual, and not necessarily co-habitating — a certain “specialness” between them — not familial — an exclusivity — that unites these people — which gives them certain entitlements, benefits, and obligations with respect to each other.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I support equal rights for all, 75, not a select few based on this or that. I even support some privileges for some of those that do not have them at this time.

        Tutt, very well said, my dear lady.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        I see what 75’s problem is, he thinks the Federal Government marries people, when in fact it is a states responsibility and they set up their own rules. Age, blood tests, etc.

        But you lefties demand equal treatment when the City of Houston, Harris County and The State of Texas sets aside 20% of all bids for minorities or women only. In other words, white men do not have the right to bid on 20% of state and municipalities work.

        I have known for quite some time that there is no such thing as equal, on any level.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        And we have Buzz…buzzing in to emphasize that states should have the ability to deny a marriage license to Black wanting to marry White people.

        I just don’t get how you think this is a good idea. Absolutely baffling.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Dan, HT is married with twins and one on the way, if that one has not already arrived.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        What are you smoking Homer.

        States are the only authority to get married. Who is talking black or white?

        Captain, Homer can be gay if he is using his family as a beard. It has happened many times.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        And Buzz…you are arguing that States have the “right” to deny granting a marriage license to White people who want to marry Black people.

        As long as the state does not otherwise deny people what Stern would call their rights (in contrast to the Supreme Court’s definition of rights), according to you and he, the State should have the ability to decide to refuse to recognize the marriage between a White person and a Black person.

        Stern…you clearly do not agree with the verdict in Loving, but I do want to walk through the logic.

        If marriage isn’t a right, the Court could have ruled that the State must stop imprisoning or otherwise restricting the rights of inter-racial couples but the State would still be able to refuse to issue a marriage license to inter-racial couples.

        Would it be safe to say that would be how you would have ruled in that case?

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, HT, I agree that ot was a violation of their rights by stripping them of their citizenship and putting them in prison. Are you suggesting that is still happening?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn, reading is fundamental.

        As was clearly asked of you, and has been asked before, and as you keep ducking either because you’re stupid, clueless, or basically dishonest:

        “If marriage isn’t a right, the Court could have ruled that the State must stop imprisoning or otherwise restricting the rights of inter-racial couples but the State would still be able to refuse to issue a marriage license to inter-racial couples. Would it be safe to say that would be how you would have ruled in that case?”

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Gosh darn it Buzz….you figured me out.

        My carefully constructed facade comes crumbling down.

        It really is a horrible thing when a gay person marries a heterosexual person just to achieve some level of “normalcy” in the view of society.

        It is damaging to the gay person, his or her spouse, and potentially to any children if the gay person (or heterosexual person) realizes that living a lie is not worth it and ends the marriage.

        If only there was something we could do to help stop that.

        Oh wait, there are things we can do.

        Maybe we could stop calling people an abomination, a deviant, or abhorrent.

        Maybe we should just let them get married to people they love rather than fighting it tooth and nail when it does not affect you at all.

        Nah, what is the fun in that? It is much more satisfying to sit in judgment of the deviants.

    • goplifer says:

      This is a pretty solid platform. The abortion and gay marriage stuff goes too, far, but that will be dialed back in the next couple of platforms.

      Click to access Illinois%20Republican%20Party%20Platform.pdf

      • Crogged says:

        Nope, sorry, this is whack- there is praise regarding an Obama appointee.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Not too bad, Lifer. Supporting voter ID, life begins at conception, do away with registration of firearms, marriage is between one man and one woman, against Obamacare and socializing health care, nothing at all about a basic or minimum income for all people, and that was just skimming over it. In fact, I didn’t see a whole lot there that you have promoted here, but quite a bit that you preach against here on your blog.

      • geoff1968 says:

        The IL GOP platform is pleasantly free of bombast and brief. You could almost subscribe to it and not have to apologize to the neighbors. The TX GOP platform, otoh, should include a coupon for antacid because it is one bad trip.

        Ten planks would be a nice even number for a platform. Short but sweet with plenty of room for a citizen to project him/her self into it. If you could fit it on a 3×5 tri fold with a Packer schedule on it most people would pick it up and give it a look.

        Remember, the grassroots and party activists are not always one and the same group of people.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Try telling that to Homer. He doesn’t understand how the sausage is made.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        If platforms are actually meaningless, kabuzz, then why do they exist in the first place?

        It’s as if you are claiming that it’s vital to create sausage even though no-one is ever going to eat it.

    • Tuttabella says:

      It might be helpful to provide 3 columns:


      With examples of each under each column.

    • johnofgaunt75 says:

      Here’s another example using your “logic”:

      Most cities require a permit to march or hold a rally (right to association which is a fundemental right). The issuance of such permits must be unbaised and not based at all on the content of the speech or the type of organization marching based on current law.

      But your logic would say that a state or city that doesn’t like or recognize, say, the rights of a pro-life group to march could simply deny them the “priviledge” of obtaining a permit to march and exercise their right of association. That is 100% unconstitutional. Period.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Permits are needed when the march will use and block public roads. The people protesting in front of abortion clinics, outside Chick-Fil-A or even in front of Bush’s Crawford ranch don’t need permits.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Permits are required almost all the time. If you are protesting on a public sidewalk in front of Chick-Fil-A, most cities technically require a permit. Not saying they always enforce such laws, especially if the gathering is small. But most cities require a permit for safety reasons (which is a valid reason under current consitutional law).

        Regardless, in some situation you most certainly need a permit and, following your logic, a group could be denied the priviledge of being granted a pemit (and thus denied their fundmental right to associate). Denying such permits for biased or simply because the city doesn’t the group is CLEARLY unconstitutional.

      • CaptSternn says:

        They can associate on private property if they so desire. That is their right. To impeed the public is not a right.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        So? You still have a right to associate on public property (barring valid safety concerns). The Surpreme Court has recognized this right and had slapped down cities that tried to deny permits for invalid reasons countless times (which is something that your logic would seemingly allow them to do).

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, but not the right to impede the public.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Indeed. That is a valid safety concern which is allowed now under current law.

        What you are saying is that the state could simply deny them a permit because they don’t agree with what they are saying or what they stand for. The state can’t do that.

        Alright. I am done. This has been interesting but I am going to spend the rest of my Friday afternoon working outside in the sun.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Apparently Dan hasn’t a clue about anything not spoon-fed to him about a situation: for instance, the idea of liability in an unmonitored space.

        How typical of the short-sighted children who now run the Republican Party.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 454 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: