A hollow view that can't come to pass

If you had actually read the article... (0.00 / 0)

It appears that the plank you are refering to is pretty universally disagreed with by most Republicans and is still there because it hasn't been removed yet. Like most things in politics and law now, something remains until someone actively removes it (How many unenforceable, outdated and unconstitutional laws are still on the books?).

When this issue came up months ago, the responce from almost every republican blogger and official interviewed was "it should be taken out of the document". Many have gone a lot further in condemning it. You are beating a horse that has already been beaten to death.

---

by: moorcatavalon @ Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 18:22:10 PM UTC

I read the article, moorcatavalon (0.00 / 0)

And the state GOP executive director didn't seem to have a problem with the plank -- nor does most of the rank-and-file. Nobody has ever taken the initiative to change it, according to E.D. Bowen Greenwood, and the matter has never even come up for discussion.

So it seems to me that this homophobic plank will stay in the GOP platform for many years to come.  

---

by: pete talbot @ Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 20:01:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Universally disagreed with? Not hardly. (0.00 / 0)

Pubbies just love code words.  You know, like "Kenyan" for the N word, etc.  But with this platform, they don't even NEED a code word!  It's right there!  In their platform!  Gays need to be in PRISON!   And the beauty of it is, they can deny it all they want, but the message is still there!  They don't NEED to say diversity needs to be in prison.  They can be VERY clear as to their intentions!  So why remove it?  It's serving their purpose.  It's showing all religeewackos and teawankers that their "tradtional" values are still right there.  And that hate need not be removed immediately, regardless of a Supreme Court decision.  For just like with Roe v. Wade, with the proper configuration on the Supreme Court, abortion will again be prohibited.  Their platform is just a simple reminder that if they eventually get the majority and a sympathetic court, gay prisoners are back on the table!  They really are the party of hate.

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 20:22:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Forgive my laziness. (0.00 / 0)

But I have a pretty massive head-cold right now.  So allow me to repost a comment I left at Intelligent Discontent:

Seems to me that the AP missed an important little fact. Twice since the Gryczan ruling, the Montana legislature has tried to repeal the sodomy and perversion statutes from the law. The last time was in 2001. Both times, the effort was derailed by the Montana GOP, and it's representatives to the legislature. So there is no basis for Greenwood's mousy little claim that 'it just hasn't come up to remove the plank from the platform'. Yes it has.

One other thing that makes me nervous this year is that Nels Swindal is basically running as a GOP/Tea Party candidate for the Montana Supreme Court. Should Swindal get elected, there is little stopping the GOP from making this a 'state's rights' issue, in the same manner that local legislatures throughout the country are attempting to whittle away at Roe v. Wade.

In short, Greenwood is full of shit.  They haven't removed that plank because they don't want to.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 23:18:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not for lack of trying... (0.00 / 0)

There's been several attempts to remove the offensive and unconstitutional code from the books over the years. Since 1991 - and also after the supreme court ruling in 1997.  

---

by: Jamee Greer @ Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 00:27:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So, if all the Repubs dislike it (0.00 / 0)

Why is it still in the platform?  I don't get it.

---

by: Turner @ Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 18:54:50 PM UTC

I should've asked, (0.00 / 0)

If so many Repubs are against it, why is it still a party plank?  The answer, of course, is that most ARE for it.

---

by: Turner @ Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 19:08:14 PM UTC

The answer starts with a T... (0.00 / 0)

The reason it won't go away isn't because most republicans hate gays so much that it makes them enjoy ignoring the constitution, but because the very loudest Republicans do.  Look at Ravndal - even if he is honest and doesn't support stringing up and killing gay people, he nonetheless certainly thinks their lifestyles ought to be illegal.  Same with Allen-Gailushas declaring war on the gay community.  The fact that this plank remains even after it has been pointed out as unconstitutional and inhumane merely serves to point out that mainstream Republicans are afraid to go against the will of the TEA party.  

---

by: The Polish Wolf @ Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 20:19:31 PM UTC

vote running 80/20 against support for same sex couples (0.00 / 0)

On the Bozeman Daily Chronicle website, the vote's running 80/20 against my resolution of support for the same sex couples' lawsuit. That, despite the city already acknowledging those rights in its ordinances (proposed by me and adopted earlier this year)for hiring, personnel, and contracting policies.

And the constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to be only between a man and a woman was passed by a 2/3 majority.

Will the Governor and AG defend against the suit and line up with the Republicans (and a populist but oppressive majority) on this issue, or will they do the right thing and settle?

The Tea party wasn't around in 1997 when this plank first appeared on the Republican platform, but I'd say it's accurate that it is still supported by the majority of republicans just as couples' rights for same sex couples is opposed by a majority of Montanans. For all the sturm and drang about the Republicans' platform, that majority in opposition to equal rights must contain a significant number of Ds...leadership included. The real reason it was brought up at this time is just...politics as usual. It's silly season, and the plan is to tie any republican to the Tea party, regardless of their merit as a candidate. It's time for the "Nobody from an opposing party can be any good, can they?" campaigning and blogging and letter writing.  

Limited government means just that. My disappointment with the Rs and the Ts are that they continue to betray that ethic and just present a different flavor of big, authoritarian, and invasive government.    

---

by: JeffK @ Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 13:07:24 PM UTC

Jeff (0.00 / 0)

I believe that your resolution is on the agenda for next Monday, September 27th, yes?  If so, will it be open to public comment?  And if so, are there rules or statutes preventing me or someone else to show up with a voice recorder?  It's strikes me that the comments will be ...interesting, and mostly unreported in the Chronicle.

Most of my co-workers who have expressed displeasure at this resolution a) don't live in Bozeman, and b) seem to feel that your time would be better spent on other things.  Notice, they never clarify what things, other than not spending their money (which many not living in Bozeman, you can't.)  Accept please that at least one of your townsfolk believes that equitable treatment under the law and civil rights for all should indeed be the city's business.  It was when we faced down the Baby Faced Neo-Nazi Kevin McQuire and his National Alliance puppies.  It should be here as well.  

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 20:44:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

An online Bozeman Comical poll? (0.00 / 0)

I'd give that as much credence as those wacky libertarian op-ed pieces that seem to grace the pages of your daily rag every time I visit Bozmania and plunk an outrageous number of quarters in the newspaper dispenser.

---

by: pete talbot @ Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 21:32:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Too funny. (0.00 / 0)

Appropos of nothing, but damn funny.  The Pubbies are possessed by sex.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Mh1T...

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 13:13:44 PM UTC

Purpose? (0.00 / 0)

I don't see the purpose of this post Jay -

Nobody has ever been prosecuted under the existing law, and since the court has ruled against similar laws it'll never happen.

I don't think you'll get any political gain here, since the militant gays wouldn't vote for a conservative candidate anyway.

But please, keep it up.

---

by: Eric Coobs @ Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 14:08:47 PM UTC

I thought you conservatives (0.00 / 0)

and tea partiers were for limited government. How is carrying a bunch of blue laws on the books emblematic of "limited government?"

It isn't, and your inability to see a purpose in removing them reveals how hypocritical you and your movement is.

Or maybe you're more interested in seeing the courts move to the right, and a reconsideration and reversal of a few key decisions would allow you guys to demand the law to be enforced.

This tea bagger ideology is just the same old culture-war-conservatism wrapped in a sheep's skin.

You guys want some credibility, then work to purge the books of blue laws, and clean up your plank.

---

by: JC @ Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 16:02:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Militant Gays" (0.00 / 0)

Like the Log Cabin Republicans?

---

by: Ambignostic @ Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 22:11:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And here I thought Don't Ask-Don't Tell prevented gays from being militant. Who knew? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Jamee Greer @ Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 00:33:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

that's my point, coobs (0.00 / 0)

If the plank doesn't serve any purpose because it's constitutionally indefensible and can never actually have any force, why is it there? The only explanation I can think of is to insult gays and to send up a flag that homophobes can gather around.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 13:23:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why the plank stays in the platform (0.00 / 0)

Did Brueggeman really not know it was there? If so, why didn't he?

One answer is that a lot of legislators, candidates, activists in both parties, even reporters, don't take party platforms that seriously when it comes to public policy. Planks are added to the platform to pander to various groups, and tend to be forgotten after the election is over -- unless, of course, someone nails them on it, in which case the standard reaction is, "What? We put that in the platform? My goodness gracious, that's not right. We should take it out." But "should" seldom becomes "will."

The "jail gays" plank of the MT GOTP (Grand Old Tea Party) is particularly odious because it advocates criminalizing private behavior and thus exposing homosexuals to blackmail as well as time behind bars. I cannot imagine the GOTP would lose votes if this plank were removed from the platform, so leaving it in the platform was/is both cynical and mean-spirited.

Finally, it's worth noting that although the plank has been in the GOTP's platform for years, it was pretty much ignored by the mainstream news media until Montana bloggers, MTCowgirl especially, brought the plank out into the sunlight. Bloggers sometimes catch hell, sometimes deserved, for ranting more than reporting, but this was reporting, pure reporting, reporting with a social conscience, damned good reporting, and damned effective.

---

by: jrconner @ Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 00:23:38 AM UTC