“At Least Two-Thirds” of Montana GOP Voted to Criminalize Homosexuality
by jhwygirl
So confirms Montana GOP Chairman Will Deschamps to Missoula Independent reporter Jessica Mayrer who took to trying to better understand (and report) the Montana GOP’s stance on homosexual acts.
Deschamps seems pretty nonplussed by all the stir:
“As I recall there was very little discussion when that came to the floor,” he says. “It went through very rapidly.”
I imagine him saying it with a nice calm smile.
I have friends that are gay and lesbian. I have one family member who is. Odds are, considering how large my extended family is, there are more. I recently found out that a very very good friend from high school is a lesbian. I met the news with some shock, in thinking of how she had felt the need to hid something so basic to her very soul.
How any human can think to criminalize sexuality – something so basic to nature – and not unique to the human race, either – is beyond comprehension.
I won’t look the other way. I won’t ignore it as if it isn’t important. These are people. Good people. Sons, daughters, brothers, sisters – fathers and mothers, frankly.
This aspect of the platform is advocating for something illegal. It is unconstitutional. It is inhumane. It’s ignorant.
Frankly – I think it’s a bit perverted, too.
Let me also say that I don’t believe that all Republicans think this way. This is a party platform, and I’ve presented this issue as such. Looking the other way, though, is not an option. It shouldn’t be. I’m obviously not a Republican (frankly, I don’t know that I’m going to call myself a Democrat anymore, either) – but if I were, I’d be making some phone calls and writing some letters and lord knows what else.
-
1
Pingback on Jul 8th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
[...] What about the state GOP’s platform which seems to have a problem with both the U.S. Constitution and the Montana Constitution? That sounds pretty unpatriotic to me… [...]
-
2
Pingback on Jul 12th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
[...] they’re not being served very well lately by politicians. When the Montana Republican Party recently reaffirmed in its platform support for “the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to [...]
-
3
Pingback on Sep 19th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
[...] GOP might be nuts, with “over two-thirds” of its membership voting in support of criminalizing homosexuality – but not all of Montana’s GOP agree. We that support equality should keep this in [...]
-
4
Pingback on Mar 19th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
[...] That law is, btw, unconstitutional under the Montana Constitution….and it is also proudly part of the Montana Republican Party platform. [...]
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
Duganz on Rape is not “knucklehead… Duganz on Rape is not “knucklehead… Duganz on Rape is not “knucklehead… coppertop on Rape is not “knucklehead… coppertop on Rape is not “knucklehead… Buzz Feedback on Rape is not “knucklehead… lizard19 on Rape is not “knucklehead…
July 1, 2010 at 3:13 pm
interesting, with a little research, found this was in the platform since at least 2004. and probably longer. You are really on to some new news. Only 7 years to get ginned up. Maybe need a pub crawl.
July 1, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Yeah for you. At least 6 years of ignorance to state and federal constitutional guarantees.
July 1, 2010 at 6:41 pm
2004 was a tough year for queer rights all around. it’s no better now than then – so i agree with jhwygirl.
Montana GOP want to criminalize being queer and they can go f*ck themselves.
jamee greer: once again, you’re welcome. you better be laughing like a care bear when i pick you up for the scissor sisters marathon to missoula.
July 1, 2010 at 5:22 pm
This is such a winning issue, lets have Mc Donald canvas the state demanding marriage and new civil rights for gays.
That should get the voters attention.
July 1, 2010 at 6:53 pm
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Thomas Jefferson
July 1, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Like this one better.
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” -Thomas Jefferson
July 1, 2010 at 10:27 pm
bs- i am struggling to understand how your quote relates to the republican party’s agenda to deny other humans freedom because they are different
are you saying that people who are different refuse to work?
if you were confused about which post you were commenting on and you meant this to be on the one about republicans denying the unemployed an extension on unemployment benefits then it also makes no sense as these are people who would work if they could find a job after your party’s simian stupid president drove us into the ditch in the first place.
so are you saying that the unemployed would not work if given the opportunity?
i know some pretty frustrated folks who would love to clarify that with you.
July 1, 2010 at 11:25 pm
You want clarification, try this. When TJ was running things sodomy was punishable by death.
Where was the compassion then? Equal rights? Equal law?
Actions speak louder than words.
July 2, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Well, well, I saw exactly how Swede’s quote was as appropriate as problembear’s.
We have two parties in this country, the one that thinks Government is Robin Hood Santa Claus, and the other that thinks Government is a dour witch hanging Puritan theocracy.
The Founders and their emphasis on individual rights and personal freedoms, and their emphasis on property rights, yes, property rights, and their anti tax positions and interest in very small government, those founders have been abandoned for the exigencies of catering to the mob.
Kudos to you both for quoting Jefferson. Too bad you won’t take each others’ quote to heart. Same guy, the philosopher President, whose words proclaimed the glorious revolution from religious establishment, and from the divine rights of kings, and declared for the rights of the individual to control the fruits of his labor.
July 3, 2010 at 7:00 am
Gotcha! Jefferson never said that. People go around making up quotes that please their own senses, and then attribute them to famous dead people and then they get repeated. Makes it sound authoritative.
July 3, 2010 at 11:02 am
Nice catch Mark. Seems that BS is full of BS on this one. Pulled it straight out of the fiction side of Truth or Fiction?
The Jefferson Encyclopedia concurs with TorF.
July 3, 2010 at 11:16 am
Excuse me, let me requote.
“To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.’”[3]
Better?
July 3, 2010 at 11:29 am
Sure. Better. Now, context please. I have a sneaking suspicion, though I’ll have to chase it down, that he was writing about primogeniture, as there was no income tax in those days.
But I could be wrong.
July 3, 2010 at 11:55 am
I think they say, “still under investigation”. At least that’s my scholarship.
The most reliable quotes are from UVa.’s website.
“The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife.” –Thomas Jefferson
“If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.” –Thomas Jefferson
July 2, 2010 at 7:55 pm
The chief danger to our individual freedom is to be found in the opinions of the majority.
July 1, 2010 at 5:57 pm
What surprises me is that queers are still Republicans. But then again, Schweitzer, a “Democrat,” supported the constitutional amendment defining marriage in Montana. Ugh. No one does queers well.
jamee greer: you’re welcome!
July 1, 2010 at 6:46 pm
freedom is the reason for society to have laws. those who seek to take another’s freedoms away because they are different hate freedom and are perverting the very reason america has laws.
law is intended to protect individual freedom and the safety of society. it limits the freedoms of those who impinge upon the freedom of others and/or endangers the safety and welfare of others.
there is absolutely no basis in american freedom which supports
the right of a political class or even a majority to limit the freedom of those who are percieved to be different. period.
those who propose doing so are enemies of freedom.
July 1, 2010 at 9:23 pm
a lot of the fear and rancor toward the LGBT community is generational, and they are losing, and they know it, which makes them dig in their heels even more.
i think there are more than a few republican candidates who only take anti-gay positions because it animates one of their key demographics, not because they necessarily believe in continually denying people their rights to enter into legally recognized marital contracts with a person who has the same parts they do.
i’m just glad my son doesn’t have to worry about losing the love and support of his parents because of his “orientation.” my generation will move this issue forward in a positive direction because for a lot of us, it already doesn’t matter who you want to screw and who you want to marry.
p.s. it’s good to see you’re back j-girl. you were missed.
July 4, 2010 at 7:59 pm
The gay marriage amendments all have one thing in common: the state GOPs drew their lines in the sand so tightly behind them that liberalizing attitudes on gay rights will overtake their position soon enough.
Gays will be married all over the west and east coasts by the close of this decade.
July 2, 2010 at 9:52 am
That’s from wiki … the point not made is that wedge issues often overshadow issues of consequence. Karl Rove using gay marriage in 2004 is classic, but this is not too far off. Democrats need something to galvanize their party, as the leadership has failed all of us miserably these past four years.
Since their record is what it is, it is best to divert attention from it, hence, wedge politics …
Question in my mind, jgirl, is whether you are knowingly participating in this, or are just a follower.
Never mind. Not wondering.
July 2, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Mark, you are wrong in your insistence that this issue has no genuine relevance to what is happening in our world.
Nor are you an arbiter of what is, and what isn’t.
July 3, 2010 at 7:04 am
I did not say that it was not an issue had no “genuine relevance.” The key to understanding wedge politics is that wedge issues force others out of the marketplace. With the Democrats, it is in their interest to find some wedgies to run on, as on other important issues, like war and Guantanamo and health care, torture and wiretaps and rendition, they have failed us, miserably.
I may not be the arbiter, but as a non-partisan, it is easy from this distance to understand what they are up to. Not the j-girl -she’s a tool. But the party leadership.