THE STRAIGHT SCOOP ON REAGAN AND GAYS

A recent post by a "regular" (using that word as a noun and not an adjective) on Swampbubbles about Ronald Reagan's rumored anti-gay rights stance prompted me to point out something that brain-washed liberals have as much trouble accepting as the fact that Obama is not entirely black.

In November of 1978, California had a ballot issue called "Proposition 6." This issue was sponsored by a conservative legislator named John Briggs (and thus it is sometimes referred to as the "Briggs Initiative"). The bill would have prevented gays from working--in any capacity--in California's public schools.

Anita Bryant campaigned in favor of the Proposition and Harvey Milk campaigned against it.

Just when it looked like Proposition 6 would easily win, Ronald Reagan--who at the time was a former governor of the state--wrote an editorial in the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner opposing the issue. It was a risky move for a man who was soon to run for president and needed conservative votes. Reagan wrote "Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this."

Sure doesn't sound like Reagan hated gays--does it? By the way, Propositional 6 lost by 17 percent and even the San Francisco Chronicle admitted that Reagan's opposition was instrumental to its defeat.

Now, I don't think that any of this will keep the liberals from lying about Reagan's actions related to gay rights, but at least those of us who have the ability to learn about and relay the truth can feel secure in our statements.

No votes yet

Where is this "editorial" that you clam Ronny Reagan wrote, is in a picture frame hanging on the wall in your bedroom? Did you just remember that you read this "editorial" in a LA
newspaper 35 years ago and thought you would share it with us? CAN YOU POST A LINK TO THIS ARTICLE that you clam Reagan wrote ( or more accurately his speech writers)?
Are you gay and that is why your upset? (not that there is anything wrong with that).

I could provide a link for you, but then that doesn't help you become a gatherer of your own facts--now does it?

If you search the Internet for information on the Briggs Initiative, you'll find numerous articles that will reference and/or provide a link to Reagan's editorial.

If I can help just one liberal become more educated....

Your the one claiming he said that not me. Keep making up shit in defense of your hero.
You are just another brainwashed right wing closet queer.

NOTE TO SELF: Give-up on trying to make liberals research their own questions.

Tell us who your heroes are?

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Fredo Lafever

Mine too.

I've got some news for you: Reagan is dead. And he's not going to run in 2016; another Republican zombie will fill that role, like Romney.

We are all aware of that (with the possible exception of Willard). If you would actually like to see who started all of this, please refer to Willard's recent inaccurate comment about Reagan and gays on a previous post. I can't recall which post it was, but my suggestion would be to pick the subject matter that is least related to Reagan--something like "Cute Kittens Save Owner" and that is the most likely place Willard would post a Reagan comment and photos.

I took your advice and goggled that Briggs amendment. It does appear that Regan did write that editorial. You wee correct on that and I stand corrected. However is motive for writing that at that time could be debatable. He might of spoke of his hatred for gays openly after that when his Alzheimer's disease kicked in starting his second term or when he realized that his own children hated him.

I don't think so, but wouldn't go so far as to make a money bet on it. I do agree that Reagan is yesterday's news. We have much more serious problems today than back then. On the other hand, we could use someone with Reagan's backbone, as opposed to the weaklings and communists in positions of power in the U.S. now.

In 2016, I think there will be all-out war amongst Republicans - RINOS vs. Conservatives. Marco Rubio is currently making sure he will NEVER be nominated. Such a promising beginning, only to expose himself as one of the weaklings. But we have Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz

We have 2 really good Republicans, who I don't think will allow themselves to be bullied. I voted for Romney (rather than 3rd party, which I had done for years) because the alternative was (& is) so desperately horrifying. But lots of evangelicals (including my mother) stayed home due to Romney being a Mormon. My mother was real proud of staying home in 2012 - but she has gotten non-stop flack from my parents' church friends ever since. I believe those conservative stay-homers in 2012 will be actively voting Republican in 2016.

2016 is going to be some kind of "decider" election, mainly, I believe, as to whether there will even be a functioning republican party after that. The media is currently trying to set the stage to their own liking. You have that idiot David Brooks on PBS (RINO) who is wrong on just about everything. Then you have Karl Rove - who the media hates, but is using as a kind of front man now, indicating that HE represents majority thought in the GOP - which couldn't be further from the truth. Conservatives couldn't stand Karl Rove when Bush Jr. was in the White House... they certainly don't listen to him now.

The media is trying to tamp down any conservative views or conversation in the ramp up to 2014 mid-terms. Obama thinks if he can take the House, he will be exonerated and have a "mandate". And the mainstream media is pulling out all the stops trying to help him. (Notice Scott Pelley "spiking" the latest Hillary scandal.)

But conservatives (Romney was NOT a conservative) are starting to wake up and dig in their heels. Romney was not a zombie - just a nice guy who was incredibly naiive about the American electorate in general. He actually thought making nice-nice would win him votes. He deliberately declined to clobber BO on Benghazi. He was nice, but spineless.

I hope Rand Paul gets the nomination. He could beat any moron the Dems put up - and the Dems KNOW that. They will be going after Rand Paul and the Ted Cruz big time in the near future.

I have trouble framing Romney as a nice guy. He showed every sign of alpha maleness. A cuttthroat businessman. Those are not nice people at all. His household was probably like the average "Game of Thrones" episode featuring House Lannister.

But whatever. Romney will never run again. That's how the parties treat their losers. So there's little reason to discuss him. It's the guys coming up that we have to worry about. The more Rubio talks, the more I wish he'd just shut the frak up. In him, the Republicans are choosing another religious wack-job again, as if that will make up for the almost total lack of functional fiscal conservatism. That's really the core problem as you've noted: Too many RINOs. Too many so-called conservative candidates who only end up voting for spending and borrowing.

Rand Paul's just going to run into the same character assassination games that his father ran into each election cycle. Big gains in the early polls, then the mainstream media either shuts him out or features some hearsay slander. Before you can say "Liberal media", Paul gets shut out of the national narrative and some RINOs take over. Romney was a clear example of that. He should have been laughed out of the convention.

Are you sure? When did he die? Is this why he wasn't invited to speak at the Rupubic National Convention?

I become confused wheñ Republicans and high profile people try to paint themselves as the morality police and we find out their closets are full of atrosities. I once knew a once high profile figure who often spoke to kids about saying no to drugs. It was later discovered he had an addiction to cocaine and there was evidence that he may have been the head of a drug trafficking ring.

Real Conservatives who believe in small government naturally believe in social liberty. What's in the closet or out, is irrelevant in such a world. Sadly, real Conservatives are rare.

Conservatism and social liberty in this country is an oxymoron.It means social and economic liberty for about 1% of the population while the other 99% pay tribute to the self appointed slave masters.

You're confusing your liberty with other people's property rights. Like most Liberals do.

It's natural to have concentration of wealth, aka rich people. So you're going to find a lot of property locked up in legally-protected enclaves. Too bad; private property is the foundation of the nation. Maybe if you'd put down that liquor and those cigarettes, and started living cheaply and saving your money instead, you'll end up with a comfortable piece of property also.

A lot of the poor are there by their own choices. Lacking economic power, they end up having little real liberty. They've no one to blame for that but themselves. They need to put down the beer and fried chicken and start working towards reducing their payments to the productive classes.

Back in Arkansas?

Yeah, I think there was a book about that - "The Boys on The Tracks"...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.