1. says

    Gee, I guess the RNC Chair didn’t get that leaked memo about how the Republican party needs to evolve quickly on lgbt issues. Quelle surprise! In the real Republican party, it’s still 1956 and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

    In better news, when his RNC job is done, Mr. Priebus would make a highly convincing garden gnome.

  2. Tamika says

    Miss Reinceanna is nastyfolk.

    Plenty of gayfolk have been murdered because they are gay–their stories are on this site every sad week that comes.

  3. Andrew says

    He’s suprisingly less hateful than you would expect the RNC Chair to be when talking about the Gay issue. I miss that dumb black guy they had.

  4. Michaelandfred says

    I think this guy is the first person I’ve even seen with the name Reince. Skipping tried and true names that have been around for hundreds of years, John, Mark, Gabriel…. Names that come from the Bible like god intended. I don’t hold with this new naming your kids whatever pretend word pops into your head. Let’s vote. No person with the name Rience should have rights.

  5. says

    Well, this right here is why intelligent minds don’t actually respect Republicans, and Republican voters. The willful refusal to be intellectually honest. Nothing that this man said made any sort of intellectual sense, whatsoever. Republicans like to pretend that facts are just opinions, and that their opinions are actually facts.

    His stance exists to satisfy the GOP base, which is to say to satisfy the braindead plebeian scumbag bigots of America. You know, the Unfortunates of the country – the people so pathetic that they need to have a finger pointed at an “enemy” in order to feel “good” about themselves.

    Conservatives love to talk about “the definition of marriage’ yet don’t love to intelligently and explicitly explain their position, or defend it with rational logic.

    so, yeah. that’s why every intelligent discerning mind takes issue with Republicans. because your pathetic b.s. excuses are a flagrant dismissal of honesty, truth, rationale, logic and facts.

  6. says

    “He’s suprisingly less hateful than you would expect the RNC Chair to be when talking about the Gay issue.”

    Less hateful? Really? While at the same time he trivializes gay issues, he also says he, like Mittens, would like a federal constitutional amendment to strip away the legal marriages of same-sex couples and forever prohibit the possibility of equality. (While giving a Mother’s Day shout out to his wife at the end–how touching.) Maybe you were just seduced by his bedroom eyes?

  7. BobN says

    I’m gonna guess that “the Press” he was “Meeting” didn’t ask him why the GOP refuses to support civil unions, even though a majority of Republican voters now support them.

  8. james says

    Well, let’s take his word for it. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. Let’s reframe it as a civil contracts issue. That’s how state laws define marriage: as a civil contract between two persons.

    So what other contracts are limited to people of opposite gender? Mortgages? Nope. Business partnerships? Nope. Remodeling the kitchen? Nope. Credit card agreements? Nope. Automobile sales and loans? Nope. In every other area of contracting, two persons of the same gender can enter into a civil contract.

    Why, then, should the civil contract of marriage be limited only to persons of the opposite gender?

  9. Bart says

    Historical and religious union of one man and one woman…really? Maybe Mr. Priebus should check out Romney’s family history…his great, great grandfather had 12 wives. Ohppp!!

    And Mr. Priebus, is that marriage between one man and one woman forever, or until divorce?

    This guy is a mouthpiece…and not a very good one.

  10. TJ says

    As for Reince, my partner opined that his name sounds like a disease of horse genitalia.

    I’m with MICHEALANDFRED. Limit rights to people with names that sound like diseases of horse genitala.

  11. candideinncc says

    All sexual relations, according to Genesis, are predicated by incest. The Buybull tells us so.

  12. says

    Until the Republican party gives up their historic bigotry then your statement makes no sense “Christian Patriot”

    the GOP of today is nothing more than the go-to party for every piece of s**t bigot in America.

  13. Derrick from Philly says

    “Hate the bigotry, not the Republican”

    Who? Lincoln Chafee? Olympia Snow? Susan Collins? That’s about it.

  14. melvin says

    Please put an end to the “redefinition of marriage” whenever you get a chance. It is utter nonsense.

    Women did not win the right to vote until 1920. That did not change the definition of “voting” or “elections”.

  15. ggreen says

    Surprisingly he does get more than softball push back from rich republican David Gregory.

  16. David says

    These deniers need to pull their heads out of their butts (or stop lying) about the right to marry not being a civil right. Marriage laws are by definition civil laws. And the Supreme Court, in ruling that bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional, stated that the freedom to marry was a civil right.

  17. Oliver says

    Reince Priebus?
    Jeez, sounds like a Syndrome!
    Reince Priebus Syndrome.
    Twenty five years from now that’s what they’ll call someone who suffered from homophobia “back in the day”.

  18. Jack says

    Per Webster’s Dictionary:

    civil rights
    plural noun ( often initial capital letters )
    1. rights to personal liberty established by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. constitution and certain Congressional acts, especially as applied to an individual or a minority group.

    the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.

    b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.

    The defination is clearly stated and in place…nothing is being RE-DEFINED

  19. tinkerbelle says

    Actually, it is interesting to see what John Stewart had to say a few nights ago about the origins of the word and action of —”marriage”—as a concept generally accepted for the past 200 years; something about chattel and property, I think… totally “contractual” and nothing “sexual”, god forbid…

  20. says

    where’s the vocal criticism of this from the gay republicans? are they still so busy complaining about Obama supporting their right to marry that they’ve forgotten that, uh, their own people don’t support it?