Ha, I’m totally going to start refering to that heterosexual-marriage-having Roger Abramson as a radical. Today he raises the good point that folks were sold the “no gay marriages” thing as being about keeping the definition of marriage the same as what it’s been–in other words, “let’s stay the course.”
“Let’s stay the course” is by definition the opposite of radical.
But now, Robin Smith wants to argue that opposing changing the definition of marriage is radical.
Does the TNGOP even have try to have a consistant message or do they just make stuff up as they go along?
I was telling Roger earlier today that Tennessee ought to have a vibrant Republican party because the Democratic party in this state is so… so just ugh. I mean, in the whole time I’ve been here, it’s been a cavilcade of indictments and multiple families and the one person who tries to stand up and do what she thinks is right gets run out of the party.
But instead, we’ve got Democratic infighting and Republican purging of the intellectuals. It’s fun to watch, but damn.
Tiny Cat Pants 
I would disagree with Roger though (I would do so over there if he turned comments on…) —
It wasn’t like there was a pro-gay marriage item on the agenda that they opposed and stopped; they passed a constituional amendment banning it, for no apparent purpose other than that some day, someone might bring it up.
“Moderates” don’t amend constitutions so readily.
Pingback: Radical For Radical’s Sake : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee
Jon —
Point taken, but that’s really just about the procedure involved. The actual substance of the vote–keeping marriage as it is–was rather ho-hum, and that was what most people assumed they were voting for.