What you are about to read is shocking but true.
The 2010 Texas Republican Party Platform says gay people shouldn't have custody of children.1
It says issuing a marriage license or performing a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple should be punishable by jail time.2
It wants to restore 19th-century Texas statutes outlawing sex between men.3
It's one thing for extremist groups to spout this type of bigotry. But one of the nation's two main political parties? That's taking it WAY too far.
The Republican National Committee is trying to avoid the issue, but a huge public outcry can force them to take sides. Is this really what they want voters to think the GOP stands for as the 2010 elections approach?
At a time when Americans are looking for real solutions to the challenges we face, the Texas GOP decided to focus on propaganda, not policy:
"Homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases."
"Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable 'alternative' lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should 'family' be redefined to include homosexual 'couples.'"
"We oppose the recognition of and granting of benefits to people who represent themselves as domestic partners without being legally married."
They're not just against marriage equality; they're against basic equal rights. They think it should be 100% legal to fire someone for being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). Even their word choice shows a possible anti-transgender bias, using the phrases "natural man" and "natural woman." The list goes on – far beyond the usual Republican talking points on "traditional family values" and even the GOP platforms in other conservative states.
And they don't stop with attacking LGBT citizens. They also call for evicting the United Nations from the U.S., requiring drivers' licenses to indicate citizenship, opposing legislation to allow stem cell research, rescinding no-fault divorce laws, reversing Roe v. Wade, and shutting down the U.S. Department of Education.
I want to be clear: HRC is a bipartisan organization. We've endorsed Republican candidates for election. So this isn't about party politics – it's about deep intolerance that deserves to be rejected.
After you've signed, please spread the word to your friends – LGBT and straight, Republican and Democrat – and help us get the word out.
Let's not allow the national Republican Party to hem and haw their way out of this one.
P.S. The full platform is available here (PDF).
1. "We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to...custody of children by homosexuals..." [sic]
This link is specific to you, so please take action on this campaign before you forward to your friends. Having trouble clicking on the links above? Simply copy and paste this URL into your browser's address bar to fill out and share the survey: http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&id=885
Thursday, June 24, 2010
GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle won't talk to the mainstream press about her calls to withdraw from the UN, abolish Social Security, and shut down the EPA. She's also warned of "Second Amendment remedies" if the teabaggers don't come to power in 2010.
The U.S. Supreme Court has just ruled that anti-gay activists in Washington state MUST make public the names on Referendum 71. Protect Marriage wanted to keep the names secret, claiming they feared retribution from "violent homofascists." The ruling (PDF) was 8-1, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.
Justices ruled in a case called Doe V. Reed. They heard oral arguments in Washington, D.C., April 28. The conservative group that tried to block release of the signatures wanted the nation's high court to uphold a lower court ruling that said signing petitions and referendum is constitutionally protected political speech - which by law is OK to engage in anonymously. The group, Protect Marriage Washington, asked justices to shield the names of the 138,000 people who signed Referendum 71 petitions in hopes of overturning the "everything but marriage" same-sex domestic partner law. In November Washington voters upheld the new statute. Gay rights groups have said they'll post the petition signers' names online, and some fear harassment or threats if their names are revealed.The Court's decision, of course, has far-reaching implications for the transparency of the referendum process and campaign finance laws nationwide. SO SUCK IT, NOM! This is a GREAT day for LGBT Americans and the democratic process.Joe