Meghan McCain: We need a GOP that supports gay marriage
posted at 9:25 pm on April 13, 2009 by Allahpundit
I thought we already had one. Remember this?
Granted, it was skewed by Politico’s link, but not by that much. Meggie Mac, er, weighs in:
I am a woman who despises labels and boxes and stereotypes. Recently, I seemed to have rocked a few individuals within my party by saying that I am a pro-life, pro-gay-marriage Republican. So if anyone is still confused, let me spell it out for you. I believe life begins at conception and I believe that people who fall in love should have the option to get married. Lest we forget, our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, grants the same rights to everyone in this country—“All men are created equal.” If you think certain rights should not apply to certain people, then you are saying those people are not equal. People may always have a difference of opinion on certain lifestyles, but championing a position that wants to treat people unequally isn’t just un-Republican. At its fundamental core, it’s un-American.
At the end of the day, speaking at the Log Cabin Republicans’ convention isn’t just about reaching out to the gay community—although I believe doing so is vital to the future success of the party. It’s also about reaching a wider base and redefining what it means to be Republican, and leaving labels, stereotypes, and negativity by the wayside.
Whiter “negativity”?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next »
If that’s where you’re heading, you’re on the wrong road.
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 10:16 PM
Polyester is the Devil’s fabric! Gaaah!
Punchenko on April 13, 2009 at 10:16 PM
My message to Ms MCcain is this:
annoyinglittletwerp on April 13, 2009 at 10:17 PM
My message to Ms MCcain is this:www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3uvU4o3lqA&feature=related”
annoyinglittletwerp on April 13, 2009 at 10:18 PM
You are willfully missing my point here. We are going down a slippery slope if we declare marriage a constitutional “right”? If it is a constitutional right than several types of people (not just homosexuals) can claim they are being denied a right. If gay marriage is legal what would you tell a polygamist why he/she can’t marriage? It wouldn’t make sense.
terryannonline on April 13, 2009 at 10:18 PM
When someone resorts to cut-and-paste jobs they know they’re in trouble.
Can’t explain your own position? Plagiarize another person.
SteveMG on April 13, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Oh, I guess you win…
RightWinged on April 13, 2009 at 10:18 PM
I really don’t care about winning the votes of gay people. Even if all of them voted for McCain, he still would have lost California. Its more about convincing the young dumb straight moderates that Republicans don’t want to jail their gay Uncle Mike.
Speedwagon82 on April 13, 2009 at 10:19 PM
yep. We all let our politicians think for us. That’s why we all loved how W handled the whole immigration thing, the Harriet Miers nomination, the prescription drug benefit, the Dubai ports deal, the decision to keep Rumsfeld until just after the election, the bank bailouts, and so much more…oh wait.
pecan pie on April 13, 2009 at 10:19 PM
jimmy the notable on April 13, 2009 at 10:19 PM
OK Meghan, what about people who fall in love with sheep or donkeys?
PrincipledPilgrim on April 13, 2009 at 10:20 PM
UNCLE UNCLE UNCLE
I GIVE I GIVE
ALRIGHT ALREADY
Bring back Kathleen Parker and Peggy Noonan. Jeesh, you’re a vicious B !
Marcus on April 13, 2009 at 10:20 PM
Your right.
austinnelly on April 13,2009 at 10:07PM.
austinnelly: No, I’m not right,here in Ontario Canada,Same
Sex Marriage is legal!
And,now,we don’t here a peep,from the gay
rights community!
No to marriage,Civil unions, seems okay!
And really,it doesn’t matter how the right
acts,the Left who find any angle,shape or
form to demonize the Republican Party!
Just throwing it out there,after all,there
must be a lot of gay Republicans!:)
canopfor on April 13, 2009 at 10:20 PM
Let’s try this again.My message to Ms MCcain is this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3uvU4o3lqA&feature=related”
annoyinglittletwerp on April 13, 2009 at 10:20 PM
She’s almost as much Republican as her dear ole pop.
PJ Emeritus on April 13, 2009 at 10:20 PM
Of course, gay marriage is not illegal anywhere in the country.
And no one is calling for it to be made illegal.
SteveMG on April 13, 2009 at 10:21 PM
I don’t quite see how that’s a response to my comment….
jimmy the notable on April 13, 2009 at 10:21 PM
Dang it!
annoyinglittletwerp on April 13, 2009 at 10:21 PM
I want the right to walk naked into any restaurant, public building, bus, airplane, and lady’s sewing circle.
Just change the legal definition of “dressed” to mean any person with or without clothes on.
Saltysam on April 13, 2009 at 10:21 PM
Here you go alittletwerp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3uvU4o3lqA&feature=related
blatantblue on April 13, 2009 at 10:21 PM
Dude, I am in Texas. I never reject A/C!
carbon_footprint on April 13, 2009 at 10:21 PM
Poor cons.
Legal gay marriage, legal immigrants, Muslim respect, you are running out of people to hate.
getalife on April 13, 2009 at 10:22 PM
Can we infer from that that you love cons?
PrincipledPilgrim on April 13, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Thanks Blatant Blue!
annoyinglittletwerp on April 13, 2009 at 10:24 PM
blatantblue on April 13, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Still don’t care, assuming the son is of age and can consent.
If we can’t tell women in their 40s not to get pregnant, when the risks are worse for birth defects than they are for incest, and if we can’t legislate morality, then I see no logical reason to tell a mother and son they can’t marry.
That’s a separate issue. Either we have freedom of speech, or we don’t.
Jet will argue with you on that one.
Esthier on April 13, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Quite frankly, I don’t take well to being compared to a Polygamist. But c’est la vie.
However, I can agree with you that Marriage is not a Constitutional Right. It is not. I believe it’s in the State’s best interest to encourage co-habitating, monogamous couples that combine incomes, purchase property, start businesses, and overall promote monogamy (less STD transmission; reduced unwanted pregnancy), irrespective of sexual preference. That’s my axe to grind on why the State should permit Same Sex Unions. Not because of “civil” or “Constitutional” rights.
However, when critics of same-sex unions press for — and pass — Constitutional prohibitions on same sex unions, it kind of cuts the argument against it being a Constitutional right off at the knees, eh?
“Marriage isn’t a Constitutional right! So we’ll amend… the Constitution!… to make sure it isn’t!”
Irony. All I’m saying.
lansing quaker on April 13, 2009 at 10:24 PM
I don’t hate anybody.
Hate breeds hate.
getalife on April 13, 2009 at 10:24 PM
That “slippery slope” argument has been around since the debate over interracial marriage. Last time I checked, civilization didn’t come to an end when when that became legal.
SnarkVader on April 13, 2009 at 10:24 PM
heh…you just have to leave a space between the colon and the start of the url…
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 10:25 PM
No, this con loves legal immigrants, it’s those illegal immigrants that I HATE!!!!!
carbon_footprint on April 13, 2009 at 10:26 PM
If you don’t want to mess with the constitution, you must be against all the proposed amendments banning gay marriage, right?
SnarkVader on April 13, 2009 at 10:26 PM
I think Megan fancies herself a pseudo-celebrity in the vein of Paris Hilton. She is certainly doing her best to trade on her name and produce nothing of any value to warrant the attention she gets, a la Paris.
Levin says that the left has grossly misinterpreted the meaning behind “all men are created equal” and it seems Megs has fallen into the same trap. Actually, in her defense, I imagine most people have. When the Founders said we were all created equal, they meant by God himself, that we are all human and are equal in that respect. But to suggest that some people aren’t born with certain advantages, or that others don’t work hard to create advantages for themselves, is ludicrous.
Further to which, the Constitution specifically states that those powers not explicitly granted to the federal government belong to the states. I am sure a creative judicial activist could fashion an Equal Protection argument in favor of gay marriage. But why do we even have to go there? Why set that precedent? Some states are already legalizing gay marriage. That, to me, signals greater public acceptance of the notion, and it’s how I believe the Founders expected our laws to evolve. You cannot legislate people’s beliefs and using the Constitution to do so is a perversion and abuse of the document. People will either come around to a point where they’re OK with gay marriage on the whole, or they won’t. Let people argue this out themselves in the public discourse, and let the states decide for themselves what works for their citizenry.
Or better still, get government out of the marriage business altogether and leave it to the churches to determine what is marriage and what isn’t. Private contracts between two individuals regardless of gender or, for that matter, the nature of their relationship ought to be allowed free of government intrusion.
NoLeftTurn on April 13, 2009 at 10:26 PM
Oh, I see. But you just don’t believe in “live in let live” or something like that. Rhetorical question, BTW.
PrincipledPilgrim on April 13, 2009 at 10:26 PM
Correct me if I misunderstood, but your message implied that we blindly follow politicians such as Palin not based upon their positions but on who it is that is speaking (or at least that AP was using that to generate comments), and I’m just refuting that notion. I think most people who comment on political blogs are coming to their own conclusions by the very nature of being political students.
pecan pie on April 13, 2009 at 10:27 PM
live
inand let livePrincipledPilgrim on April 13, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Well, ….. ah, ever mind, it’s too easy….
RightWinged on April 13, 2009 at 10:27 PM
.
She must hate Christmas.
ronsfi on April 13, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Equal treatment under law…now that’s Constitutional.
As it is, I am denied that.
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 10:28 PM
One Reason to Ban Everything You Post on Hot Air.
1) You’re a Leftard moron that really never has anything to say. Unless we count Dogshit as having something to say.
BigWyo on April 13, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Really? That’s your response: “Oh, racist used the slippery slope argument.”
I’m FREAKING tired of being compared a bigot for not wanting gay marriage. By the way I’m neither white or male. So I know how it is to be minority. And stop comparing gay marriage to civil rights. It is offensive to the people who suffered through segregation. It is demeaning the crap they had to grow through.
terryannonline on April 13, 2009 at 10:29 PM
Does this thread have anything to do with the Rachel Maddow book ad?
Speedwagon82 on April 13, 2009 at 10:29 PM
You really don’t like JetBoy, do you
blatantblue on April 13, 2009 at 10:29 PM
No buts about it!
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 10:29 PM
So, just out of curiosity, do you support polygamists having multiple wives?
RightWinged on April 13, 2009 at 10:30 PM
Yet another reason to replace doofpundit from HA.
Why does MM continue to be relevant here? Because AP keeps posting everything that comes out of her mouth.
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 10:30 PM
The Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that marriage is indeed a constitutional right.
But again, for the ten thousdandth time, same sex people are not prevented from marrying one another.
The issue is whether the government must recognize for legal purposes that marriage.
If they don’t, that doesnt’ mean the gay couple isn’t married. It just means they don’t get certain benefits that opposite sex married couples get.
This isn’t about rights as much as it is about benefits and privileges.
SteveMG on April 13, 2009 at 10:30 PM
Meant to write : go through.
terryannonline on April 13, 2009 at 10:30 PM
No, you’re not.
Whether you’re homosexual or not does not deny you from entering into a marriage.
Stop being silly.
Saltysam on April 13, 2009 at 10:30 PM
No, currently you can’t do those things. I’m asking why not. Why shouldn’t you be able to?
Donkeys and sheep cannot legally consent to anything.
Not bad.
Esthier on April 13, 2009 at 10:31 PM
As the netherlands supreme court found, there’s absolutely no legal basis to say polygamy is illegal if gay marriage is legal.
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 10:31 PM
So am I if I want to marry a man.
And I’m straight.
SteveMG on April 13, 2009 at 10:31 PM
No one’s calling you a bigot. At least I’m not. So please climb down from your Cross.
I do love how you feed into the stereotype that “white males” are the bigots re: homosexuality. Last I checked, African Americans were by far the more homophobic of the races in America.
lansing quaker on April 13, 2009 at 10:31 PM
What did I say that had anything to do with “liking” anyone? I was making a joke. I can’t keep track of who everyone is here, so while I know I’ve seen JetBoy, I don’t recall him being someone who claims to be gay… And FWIW, he engaged me first. But again, my comment was a joke. He left himself wide open (no pun intended, this time), when he said something about “space between the colon”.
RightWinged on April 13, 2009 at 10:32 PM
What? Equal treatment?
Everyone has the same rights, not everyone gets the same spa treatment.
Or if you don’t mean treatment, then use the words you mean that have legal merit for your argument.
Spirit of 1776 on April 13, 2009 at 10:32 PM
Great post.
Branch Rickey on April 13, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Nah I know, I picked up on that possible joke too
blatantblue on April 13, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Okay, yeah, that’s basically what I was saying, but with this caveat:
Basically, the extreme popularity of someone like Palin has the ability to convince some people that they should reassess their views simply because their own views disagree with Palin’s. I presented that as the opposite of the Meghan McCain effect: Her extreme unpopularity forces people to reasses those views of hers with which their own views actually agree.
I’m not saying that happens to everyone here, but it is definitely a present phenomenon, that I believe Allahpundit exploits.
jimmy the notable on April 13, 2009 at 10:33 PM
I’m not comparing you to a bigot and I apologize if you took it that way. What I’m saying is that marriage has endured hundreds of changes and has survived. Thinking that gays and lesbians are going to be the ones who bring it’s downfall is crazy.
SnarkVader on April 13, 2009 at 10:34 PM
Really, when I say it is slippery slop and the person responds “Well that’s what they said about interracial marriage.” What are they inferring: It is the same argument racists used.
Also I’m not African-American. But the fact that African-Americans don’t buy into the whole “civil rights” argument should say A WHOLE LOT!
terryannonline on April 13, 2009 at 10:34 PM
McCain has had her 15 minutes of fame. Time for her to leave.
GarandFan on April 13, 2009 at 10:34 PM
I do not.
Gay marriage doesn’t change much…it’s still TWO consenting adults entering a binding legal contract. TWO.
heh, RightWinged and I have had our, shall we say, “differences” over the last couple years.
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Unless, of course, they’re hung on people like Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or knuckle-dragging trailer-trash types.
ddrintn on April 13, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Thanks… though it’s disturbing how many people here consider what I said to be “bigoted”, etc.
RightWinged on April 13, 2009 at 10:35 PM
lol
blatantblue on April 13, 2009 at 10:35 PM
It sure does! Now, would you like to meet my casual acquaintances known as the “Down Low Culture” and “HIV infection statistics”?
lansing quaker on April 13, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Can you reference a study that supports this phobia?
That would be an interesting read.
Saltysam on April 13, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Uh, that’s like saying the time travel doesn’t change much. Gay marriage is a ridiculously new phenomenon.
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 10:36 PM
OK people…You know what argument doesn’t hold one drop of water? The “You have marriage rights, you can marry a woman like the rest of us guys” shpeel.
Please. Shake your heads and wake up thine brain cells.
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 10:37 PM
Why? Why 2? Where did you pick that number from? I raised this point earlier, but you didn’t reply then…
Sorry if I don’t remember… for some reason I have trouble keeping track of “who is who” around here. I know you’ve been around for a long time, I just don’t remember anything about you, so you being teh ghey is news to me. Only person I really remember was looney toons “Soothsayer”
RightWinged on April 13, 2009 at 10:37 PM
Jetboy
For treating gays badly our society deserves to die?
No a family is made of a man and a woman committed to each other and only those couples should be parents. However because that is not what often happens doesn’t invalidate the ideal.
Romantic love in marriage is a new concept and has not been all that benefical as primary reason to marry. Think about it. People fall out of love and get divorced. LOVE does not make a family. A family makes a family–man, woman, child.
Your gayness does not destroy civilization. Our civilization is being destroyed because marriage has been misused. Of course child abuse is damaging to society as well. So are divorces, exteremely devastating.
Selfishness of all kinds is destoying our society. I don’t want you or anyone else to live an unhappy unfulfilled life. But marriage between men and women needs to become more important not less. Not just one of many options, but the primary structure of society.
Coupling of gays serves a different purpose from heterosexual marriage. It may even be better for society if gays have more reason to be monogamous such as a ceremony of some kind. But it is not the primary structure upon which our society is built. It is not a structure that can ever be more than incidental to society. A structure for the pleasure of two people alone.
petunia on April 13, 2009 at 10:37 PM
That makes perfect sense. Heterosexual marriage has been found a fundamental right. Not asexual marriage.
You’re a closeminded bigot if you want to prevent people from having multiple spouses, yet want marriage for joe and steve.
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 10:38 PM
Yet, in achieving those presumed rights you claim to be denied, you are willing to deprive me the right to practice my religion as my holy scriptures teach. How can that be equal protection???
doriangrey on April 13, 2009 at 10:38 PM
You’d better get ready. As soon as the supreme court finds gay marriage to be a constitutional right, they’re going to come after pastors and churches and demand they marry them.
It’s all about trying to convince everyone else that what they do is moral and appropriate, because they know themselves what they are doing is wrong.
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Careful, that might be considered putting people
.
Branch Rickey on April 13, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Well! I nevah!
heh…I believe we’ve disagreed mostly during the primaries. I fully supported McCain.
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Last time I checked this just meant two consenting adults entering into a binding legal contract.
Marriage has been recognized by the government as having a very specific definition.
Do you intend to scrap this definition, and define a new one, in order to square things in your own image?
Saltysam on April 13, 2009 at 10:40 PM
People like jetboy don’t get it. Christians have been persecuted for centuries in the most vile and horrible of ways for refusing to budge from scripture, yet you think calling them names is going to make them chuck the bible for a socially popular sin?
Open your mind.
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 10:40 PM
You cannot be serious.
SnarkVader on April 13, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Not off the top of my head, no, sadly. A fun bit of anecdotal evidence relating to Same Sex Union bans and African Americans can be found in Michigan, though.
In 2004 — the year Michigan went Blue for Kerry — we had the Gay Marriage Amendment in the state. Only two counties voted against it: Ingham and Washtenaw (most liberal counties in the State).
Wayne county — where Detroit is located, and is overwhelmingly African American and pro-Democrat — voted for the ban.
In 2006, we had a Constitutional Amendment banning Affirmative Action in the public sector (education; public sector employment). Three counties voted against it: Ingham, Washtenaw, and Wayne. And the Democratic Governor (Granholm) was against it, as she was against the gay marriage ban. But Detroit voted for the gay marriage ban, yet were against an Affirmative Action ban.
Each referendum passed by similar margins in their respective years.
Fun, eh?
lansing quaker on April 13, 2009 at 10:41 PM
If AP is a chubby chaser then I say bless his heart. I was a chubby chaser until I met the 90lb girl who eight months later became my wife. Go figure.
pugwriter on April 13, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Let me guess, snark, you find it appropriate to sue churches who refuse to hire homosexuals, right?
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 10:41 PM
I frankly don’t give a damn what either nitwit McCain says I’d prefer they just stfu, just sayin!
dhunter on April 13, 2009 at 10:42 PM
OK, I guess I’ll give you another chance. Your question, Why shouldn’t you be able to?, is nonsensical unless you can point out where I said I shouldn’t be able to.
jaime on April 13, 2009 at 10:42 PM
We wouldn’t be talking about her EVERY DAY if doofpundit didn’t keep posting EVERYTHING she says.
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Oh okay… again, sorry if I don’t remember who I had one debate with and who I had another with. At any rate, why no reply to the first part of my comment (again):
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/13/meghan-mccain-we-need-a-gop-that-supports-gay-marriage/comment-page-3/#comment-2094989
RightWinged on April 13, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Okay, put please stop the “gay marriage is illegal” line from your side.
‘Cause that’s not using much grey matter either.
Just because something isn’t legally recognized doesn’t mean it’s illegal.
SteveMG on April 13, 2009 at 10:43 PM
What we REALLY need is a press that ignores and refuses to feed that Meghan McCain troll.
Daggett on April 13, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Yes, and somehow you’re still allowed to post here. :)
Esthier on April 13, 2009 at 10:44 PM
I keep trying to read your posts, but all I can see is:
“WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE”
blatantblue on April 13, 2009 at 10:44 PM
And just for fun again, because I know how much Ingraham got under MeMc’s skin a few weeks back:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKH8JLuhlRo
RightWinged on April 13, 2009 at 10:44 PM
If proposition 8 banned gay marriage it also banned marriage to sheep, marriage to multiple people, marriage to aliens, marriage to llamas…
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 10:44 PM
“Redefining what it means to be a Republican”
The Royal RNC motto
I would like to examine those roots. I suspect they sprung out of her Dad
I won’t bother writing her, but overt Homosexual expression was a crime in the nation of our Founders. It was called sodomy. They didn’t have to put it into their founding documents because it was a given like prostitution and fondling
But the document did declare that all men were created equal in the eyes of God (endowed by their Creator) and all subject to the same rules. Men couldn’t marry sheep back then. That was a given too. It didn’t have to be put into the documents either.
Making all people equal does not make a sailor into a farmer or a husband into a wife. A woman or a man both have equal right to choose a biological opposite and enter into a marriage contract. Other arrangements are not marriage, they are other arrangements.
I know this is just a chip off the McCain block but daily I become more glad McCain did not win
entagor on April 13, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Take that up with doofpundit for constantly posting her dailybeast stuff here.
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 10:45 PM
This is the last M McCain post I click on. I don’t understand why this useful idiot is given a platform on conservative sites unless the point is to make fun of her which I’m not interested in doing…
CCRWM on April 13, 2009 at 10:45 PM
So a married man who beats his wife and abuses his kid…doesn’t matter, it’s a FAMILY!
Dear gawd…
Touche. But I’m right…
Once more…*sigh*…Religion has NOTHING to do with gay marriage. Nothing! Legalizing gay marriage won’t affect churches…despite the crystal ball-carrying crowd who predict the next crusades.
No church will be, as they are not now, required to perform any marriages they don’t want to. Period. End of story.
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 10:46 PM
That’s an excellent point. I forgot all about the line of 600 drag queens outside of the last Mormon job fair.
SnarkVader on April 13, 2009 at 10:46 PM
I’m trying to figure out why jetboy is a closed-minded bigot and a hateful person. I mean, he MUST be, because he opposes me marrying 5 women.
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Meh.
Equating the understanding of the definition of marriage, its role in society, and its anthropological history with a clinical diagnosis of an entire race is not my idea of a good time.
Sorry.
Saltysam on April 13, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next »