You mean you haven’t checked since the 1860s? You might want to check some more recent sources. The positions of the major parties have long since reversed.

As far as limited government, in my lifetime of almost 5 decades, I have yet to see the government get smaller in any way or fashion. The police state and prison system has grown beyond anything other 1st world nations can claim.
I can think of very few years in my lifetime this country hasnt been at war (or “police action”) with someone, and some of those wars were not always declared with the most honorable intentions. With this, military spending has continued to rise even after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war. There has been a “war” declared under the last 3 republican Presidents.

Civil equality? Don’t make me laugh. If I have to explain this one, then you are too braindead and out of touch with reality to even begin to understand my response.

The point being, the republican party may CLAIM to stand for certain admirable values in government, but theory is vastly different than the practical application of that theory in reality.

For the record, the democrats are just as guilty of bad government in their own ways, especially on the topic of gay rights. They have manipulated us for their own benefit and we are still 2nd class citizens.

BTW, “Godwin” never stated that whoever first mentioned “Nazi’s” or “Hitler” or anything similar “automatically lost the debate. Per the Wikipedia entry:

“The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable.”

BTW, I didn’t say I was a fiscal conservative. I also didn’t say I am a Republican.

Charlie: Godwin’s Law is a generally accepted principle on the Internet that comparisons to the Nazis are not acceptable in discussion. Thus, if anyone makes references to the Nazis, their argument is automatically rendered worthless and they automatically lose the discussion they are participating in. Better luck next time. (BTW, I didn’t even read your comment; I got to ‘Jews in the SS’ and that was the end of it for me.)

Rodney: Economist speaking: State control of the means of production as an economic plan does not work either on paper or in reality.

As a Socialist, I can tell you that there are plenty within Socialist Parties around the world who couldn’t give two sh*ts about gays and our rights. But in an open, multi-partisan system gay and lesbian people need to work within those parties which represent their views. Being that a good chunk gay men are quite fiscally conservative, even a few are socially conservative on issues like law and order, military and the like. Why shouldn’t they work within the GOP for change, even if they swing vote? Why should someone sell out their principles on other issues for a party(the Democrats) who don’t do very good of a job on delivering on gay rights?!? Why is it that Gay Democrats bash gay Republicans for simply being Republican, while they never critique their own Democratic candidates for selling out to the cult of bipartisanship, and playing like they’re more Republican then the Republicans? To me, the gay and lesbian rights movement is international, it transcends every possible barrier, be it social, religious, class, race, gender, nationality, language and so on. So why should the gay rights movement, in the United States suicidally limit itself to being married to the Democratic Party?!?! In our diverse nation, there are so many gay and lesbian people who have positions on issues ranging from Libertarian to Anarchist to Communist to Far Right and Eco-Socialist Left. If the gay community doesn’t want people to fit into a square peg of being gay white male cute and young, then why would it want gay people to all be registered Democrat?

I count among my friends in Tennessee, an older gay couple, one in his mid 50s and other in his late 40s, who are both Republicans. One of them voted for McCain, the other voted for Obama. Both are nominally pro-life, as am I, both served in the military and came from working class backgrounds. One is Jewish grew up in Detroit, worked for GM and moved to Middle Tennessee to work for Saturn. He was a member of the UAW, but was one of those Reagan Democrats who eventually switched to the GOP. His family was staunchly Democrat, Jewish, and working class, but also religious and reactionary conservatives. He saw Republicanism as an ideology which better represented his views. He has views and positions on issues which make him as Republican as McCain or Reagan. He supports marriage equality, universal(socialized) medical care and he’s pro-union but on every possible other issue he is as conservative as they get. He voted for John McCain, because he voted for McCain in the GOP primary in 2000. His husband however, is some dude from California who lived in Palm Springs and San Diego before moving to Tennessee. He is a Californian Liberal Republican type, someone who voted for Schwarzenegger, he voted for the GOP Mayor of San Diego who supports marriage equality. He voted in Tennessee in 2008, for Obama, despite serious misgivings. He is fiscally conservative and socially moderate, he is pro-marriage equality, middle of the road on abortion, pro-marijuana decriminalization and wants to make healthcare more accessible and affordable but isn’t for universal care like his husband. He kind of was disapointed to have voted in Tennessee this time, instead of California, he wanted to vote against Prop 8, so badly and he was pissed about it. Except on these issues, he is 100% Republican, he even sounds like Pat Buchannan when it comes to issues like open borders, cheap labor and English as the only language. He voted for Obama, even though he wanted him to support marriage equality and had misgivings on the War in Iraq, which he supports. Why should he and his lover stop being Republicans, just because they disagree on a few issues? The one thing they both staunchly disagree with the GOP on is the issue of marriage equality. Yet, even the guy who voted for McCain said, “if Obama came out in favor of marriage equality and didn’t play both sides, I would vote for him in a heart beat, but until that happens, I agree more with McCain so I am voting McCain”.

I didn’t vote for Obama either, I voted for Cynthia McKinney. I voted for what I believe in, because I agree more with McKinney more then I ever will with Obama and McKinney supported marriage equality. There are plenty of gay people who voted for McCain, McCain isn’t the average bigoted homophobe, he was one of only two Republicans to vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment, even when a handful of Democrats voted for it, without so much as a peep from gay Democratic organizations.

Our movement needs to become a post-partisan, grassroots movement. We need to not create entangling alliances, which don’t serve our goals as a group. We need to avoid non-gay issues and focus more on gay issues directly. The HRC or NGLTF, for example, should focus on gay issues, not the war in Iraq, not affirmative action, gun control, not immigration reform(except when it comes to gay married couples), environmental issues, or endorse parties or even candidates. Our orgs, like HRC and NGLTF, should endorse an ideology over another. These orgs should have cordial and cooperative relationships with Log Cabin Republicans, as well as Stonewall Democrats, even with Lavender Greens and Outright Libertarians. We need to build bridges with gay religious groups, such as Integrity(Episcopalians), Dignity(Catholics), Affirmation(Mormons), Al Fatiha(Muslims), etc but also be open to gays who don’t have a religion per se. We shouldn’t exclude religious gays, or freethinking or atheistic gays. We need BOTH sides for our common cause to succeed. We don’t need to be pro-religious or anti-religious, but we need gays and lesbians from within those faith communities as allies. Just as gay religious folks are diverse, so too are political ideologies, so we need to stop putting the Democratic Party’s agenda, which alienates gays in other parties or independents, before the gay agenda, which is our common cause.