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 6 7 Next »
As stated previously, just wait until AIDS becomes communicable …
BowHuntingTexas on April 13, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Wow, I take it you don’t out much. There’s been several lawsuits against churches for refusing to hire homosexuals.
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 10:46 PM
I figure it makes sense as a response to this:
You’re asking if it’s OK. I’m saying, “Why shouldn’t it be?”
That’s all. I don’t know if you were saying it should or shouldn’t be.
Esthier on April 13, 2009 at 10:47 PM
I couldn’t be more serious. I did not write the Christian scriptures and I don’t get the choice of deciding what God considers to be sinful and what isn’t. Nor do I have the option of disregarding what the scriptures do say because I dont happen to like it.
doriangrey on April 13, 2009 at 10:49 PM
And when that happens, I sincerely hope they sneeze on you first.
SnarkVader on April 13, 2009 at 10:50 PM
She’s our Paris Hilton.
ronsfi on April 13, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Brother/sister, mother/son, etc all right with you then? And why stop at *two* consenting adults? They’re all consenting, who are *you* to suggest they don’t have a ‘right to marry’?
/snarkiness off
Midas on April 13, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Hmmm. Sounds like a few conservative and religious icons are screwed.
SnarkVader on April 13, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Why not two? It does get a little tiring hearing the “If we let gays get married, then the polygamists and animal lovers will want to too!” routine.
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Yes, it is. Families are rarely perfect.
I’m a little weary of the whole gay marraiage issue. It’s become along with abortion another one of those issues used mainly to display “progressive” bona fides.
ddrintn on April 13, 2009 at 10:51 PM
It’s not a “routine”, it’s a legitimate question when you raise the “equal protection under the law” argument.
RightWinged on April 13, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Will somebody excommunicate this fat air-head from the party please?
The Wall on April 13, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Here’s hoping you’re not a blood donor.
BowHuntingTexas on April 13, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Just because you’re tired of a valid response doesn’t make it less valid.
Midas on April 13, 2009 at 10:54 PM
But gay marriage has nothing at all to do with abortion. Hey, with two gays, we wont be contributing to the abortion count at all! Pro lifers should LOVE us!
And yes…I am very, very pro-life.
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 10:56 PM
So long as they’re adults…
It should be limited to two because, well, the tax code is already complicated enough as it is.
jimmy the notable on April 13, 2009 at 10:56 PM
What could you possible be talking about?
I can not pretend that these are not in the scriptures.
More importantly
This is in fact already happening. eHarmony??? Hello?????
doriangrey on April 13, 2009 at 10:56 PM
It may have to come to this. I wonder if it is likely we can get the government to stay out of declaring what is hate speech and what is not. Home schooling may be the only option left for my grandchildren the way things are going.
petunia on April 13, 2009 at 10:56 PM
I forgot, and you raise a great point – hetero couples beat each other, but that never happens for gays, right? Funny how this argument always arises – ‘gays can’t be that bad,just look at this extreme example of a bad hetero relationship!’.
Please.
A husband beating his wife is bad, to be sure. A gay fellow beating his significant other is also bad, isn’t it? Goodness, we’d better not let them get married and compound that problem!
See how stupid that argument is? It was when you used it to begin with.
Midas on April 13, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Why am I willing to bet money there’s at least one person here who thinks you can’t be gay and pro life?
Why do I get that feeling?
blatantblue on April 13, 2009 at 10:57 PM
What do you have against straight women donating?
SnarkVader on April 13, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Jetboy, it’s already been done in the netherlands, so stop being a closed-minded, hateful bigot that won’t let me have my 5 wives.
From a legal standpoint there’s no difference, just as the high court in the netherlands found.
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Especially when it’s painted as a civil rights issue. Who are you (anyone) to impose your narrow little views of “morality” and “normality”?
ddrintn on April 13, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Because you’re being a closed-minded, hateful bigot like jetboy.
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 10:58 PM
This is the one problem: Just as doctors are being forced through lawsuit to perform services for gay couples that they personally disagree with, if gay marriage is legalized, I see the same problem arising for churches who refuse to perform gay marriages. Unless there is specific protections in place shielding them from such lawsuits, the ACLU will get their horrible little fingers around this issue.
jimmy the notable on April 13, 2009 at 10:59 PM
There are far more societies in the world that accept polygamy, and far more historical and legal precedent for it, than homosexual marriage.
Jet boy, you lose.
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Why is she getting so much attention? Why is Megan even considered to be a republican voice? She only registered to be a republican because her Dad was running for president. If he had lost the nomination and it was another republican who had won the primaries, she would have stated she was an independent.
Let her go find her own party. Rather than trying to redefine the republicans to suit her.
texasconserv on April 13, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Irony: an single citizen trying to tell a larger group of citizens that everybody has the right to have their choices regarded equally.
Progressive elitism for the masses, I get it.
Hey face it, if we all just adopt more of the Democratic planks, the GOP might not be elected anymore than it is, but we’ll at least agree with the party in control. Think win-win.
As long as the media thinks they can isolate us (and I am not a standard conservative), they will inflict this poseur republican on us and ask us to measure up. Her father was the model Republican by which all other Republicans were measured, until he became a “more of Bush”. Where Bush relied on the religious right, McCain blamed them for his defeat and urged the party to move away from them. But even having said the “right things” in the year 2000, he was instantly more of the same when the press needed him to be. The staunch rights were told when Gingrich didn’t agree with them, Gingrich was compared to Dole. You always have to tell the left what they want to hear.
Axeman on April 13, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Why is anybody wasting their time listening to this girl?
apco on April 13, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Because doofpundit keeps posting her dribble
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Or perhaps I’m sick of people like you making people like JetBoy out to be evil monsters.
Don’t lecture me.
blatantblue on April 13, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Well there is strong evidence that profundus Imbecilia is a incurable disorder that can be transmitted by contact with bodily fluids… I’m just saying….
doriangrey on April 13, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Since you seem to despise actually imperfect human families so much why do you want to be one? I already stated that the exceptions don’t invalidate the ideal. If all family relationships were so horrible there would not be a cry to have a gay copy of one for yourself.
Honestly you have already rejected the historical place of gays in society (invisible). So why not keep up the trend and make your own coupling thingy and leave the family alone.
petunia on April 13, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Who said jetboy was an evil monster? He’s calling everyone bigots and homophobes for opposing gay marriage, and I’m calling him a bigot and a hatemonger for opposing me having 5 wives.
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 11:02 PM
I guess that’s it. There’s never been grounds for setting NEW precedents. If it has never been done before, it should never be done at all.
We can all stop commenting now. TTheoLogan won. Party on, dude.
jimmy the notable on April 13, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Only thing to say: loving the level of maturity on this thread, especially from the purported followers of a dude who once preached “living by example”…or something.
Seriously, at least when I mock a person’s intellectual quality, I don’t go, “You’re fat,” followed by a Beavis & Butthead snort. The kind of “conservatives” trolling this site are hurting the fight for freedom more than they’re helping it. I mean, seriously, what kind of a champion of individual rights (or of the Constitution of the United States of America, for that matter?) would go around saying that the only reason to recognize a right is because it’s somehow “good for society”? John Locke and his fellow Enlightenment thinkers deviated from the norm, as did the Founders, in that they decided that society good go f*&k itself if all it was going to do was trample on the livelihood of the individual. And here you people are, pretending you’re somehow following in the footsteps of Thomas Jefferson — while simultaneously claiming that, sometimes, for the sake of the “common good” (whatever the hell that means), we have to prevent some consenting adults from drawing up a legal contract with each other and having it recognized by the state on an equal level as everyone else’s. I’d be laughing if the very idea of it weren’t so perverse.
breek on April 13, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Ok. Here’s hoping your bi / homosexual boyfriend / husband / father / son / uncle / best friend isn’t a blood donor.
BowHuntingTexas on April 13, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Jimmy, that didn’t even make sense in context of the argument. I’m arguing for polygamous marriages here.
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 11:03 PM
I’m not sure why I bother , but if you go back to my original comment you’ll see that I asked if it’s OK with the government, which you already admitted it is not. That’s why your question is nonsense.
jaime on April 13, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Yes that is what abortion and gay marriage have in common. The attempt by supporters to make everyone who opposes them on religous grounds out to be haters.
petunia on April 13, 2009 at 11:04 PM
It’s not just that, they don’t want anyone disagreeing with them and say anyone who opposes them for moral reasons are the REASON that some of their supporters feel convicted for the sin they support, therefore, the people who believe it is wrong are the REAL criminals.
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Jetboy isnt a evil monster, I think we can agree on this. His lifestyle falls short of that proscribed by the Christian scriptures. That doesn’t make him a monster, it just makes him a human.
doriangrey on April 13, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Neither of them are close-minded bigots. This thread would be infinitely better if those words could not be thrown around like beads during Mardi Gras.
Esthier on April 13, 2009 at 11:06 PM
And, the maturity just keeps on a’comin’…
breek on April 13, 2009 at 11:06 PM
DG, no one said he was a monster, and BB knows that. He’s trying to stifle dissent. One of those “how long have you raped your wife?” questions.
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Are you married?
SnarkVader on April 13, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Meghan is ahead of the times. It’s time the GOP said here’s the deal – let the gays be the weird, obnoxious gays… and they better respect the SoCons + the right of congregations to define marriage, not gov’t and not some “human rights commission”.
HotAirJosef on April 13, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Esthier, that’s the point.
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Its just that you’re not allowed to disagree with them, for whatever reason, because that is discrimination, and thanks to activist judges, discrimination is a crime, unless specifically it, well, isn’t.
jimmy the notable on April 13, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Ahead of what times? She approves of gay marriage because she does not agree with Christian morality and she has gay friends.
She has a perfect right to feel that way, but it’s certainly not profound.
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Hawk marks calendar.
hawkdriver on April 13, 2009 at 11:08 PM
It’s exactly that you’re not allowed to disagree with them. This is being done in many european countries and canada through “hate crimes” laws.
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 11:08 PM
LOL WUT
http://msp153.photobucket.com/albums/s238/bradly2795/lol_wut.jpg
breek on April 13, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Maybe it’s because I normally drink when I get online here late, but something is just not clicking here.
I fully get that it’s not currently OK with the government. My question then is (once again), “Why shouldn’t it be?”
Why shouldn’t it be OK with the government? Why should the government even be able to care whether or not you want to do those things for your son? Why shouldn’t it be OK?
Does it make sense yet? Are we clear yet?
Esthier on April 13, 2009 at 11:09 PM
Please…don’t sling scripture at me. You haven’t the faintest idea, apparently, of what those quotes are saying. They are not anti-gay.
I tells ya…not only that, but I can’t be gay and Republican, I can’t be gay and Catholic, and my favorite…That gay is a choice, or some affliction that can be cured, so I don’t have to stay gay.
I’m not concerned with the rest of the world right now…just here where I live, in the USA.
I don’t agree with the doctor thing. At all. And no…I do not for a minute believe that churches would be forced to perform any marriage…gay or straight…they don’t want to. We have a nice little thing called the Constitution.
I never said nor inferred that gays couldn’t be abusive as well. I was simply arguing that straight marriage families aren’t always perfect. But as it is, I’m not een given the chance.
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 11:09 PM
Why do you keep giving this dizzy, attention-desperate chick web space on this blog? I mean, come on MAN!
ErinF on April 13, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Sodom and Gomorrah, regardless of whether or not you think it had anything to do with homosexuality, was a pretty good indication of whether or not God changes his mind about moral issues due to popular opinion or societal acceptance.
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 11:10 PM
It seems to be lost somewhere in the discussions.
Esthier on April 13, 2009 at 11:10 PM
I still want to know why I can’t have 5 wives, HERE, in the U.S.A.
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Lawsuits will be lawsuits, and quite frankly, national recognition of same sex unions will not be the catalyst to start them. They’re already happening. Same sex unions won’t fan this flame (pun totally intended!), and prohibiting same sex unions will not stop them.
I simply make an appeal based on my own life and my own choices. I am gay. I was in a monogamous relationship for 3 years, but am now currently single. I live my life as virtuously as I can, I am a practicing, tithing Catholic (went to both Stations AND Liturgy on Good Friday, even!), I have a great relationship with my family, and one day would like to start my own.
I think promoting monogamy (see the polygamy argument fly out the window!) is good for everyone, especially the gay community, in which monogamy as seen as some tragic “breeder” concept by many. And why? Because gay unions/partnerships — the essence of monogamy — are prohibited. It’s a very cynical culture and its part and parcel of this refusal for people to say “Hey, just have a steady boyfriend!”
I’ve been blessed with a very supportive family and community. One day I hope to have a family of my own and contribute more to my local community and greater society. And I just wish more gays could have that — have that support — and be told not by their church (I have no bones with my Catholic faith and their stance on Homosexuality; I practice willingly and proudly) but by their fellow citizens that yes: there is a place for you, and yes, we want you to live your life happily and want to encourage you to be a part of something that allows you to contribute not just as an individual, but as a part of a community.
I encourage more people here to work with gay youth, either in a rural and urban setting, and understand that the best thing for a healthy society is to teach monogamy, fidelity, and community. When you excise a segment of the population as not being good enough to perform these basic tenets, that’s when you — as a part of the society — have to deal with homelessness, poverty, illness, and even suicide in these cultures.
That’s my peace, spoken.
lansing quaker on April 13, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Perhaps you should read more.
TTheoLogan on April 13, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Is that what you really want? Or are you simply using that as some example. Because, you know, there is a big, big difference.
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Anybody else make the observation that Mizz McCain seems to be the perfect conglomeration of Meathead and Gloria on All in the Family? I wonder what Archie Bunker would say about her…
“Dat dizzy dingbat should shuddup already!”
ErinF on April 13, 2009 at 11:15 PM
When is MeggyMac gonna get her permanent seat on The View?
Not a Republican, or a conservative. But a deep thinker. Bwahahahahaha!
hillbillyjim on April 13, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Thanks, Esth..
She can read just fine.
It just gets lost in your posting about “Doofpundit.”
blatantblue on April 13, 2009 at 11:15 PM
FGS. Fat girl syndrome = gay men are my friends.
bloggless on April 13, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Tipping my imaginary cap.
SnarkVader on April 13, 2009 at 11:16 PM
So reading more comments calling Jet a bigot are suddenly going to make me see that people agree with me that the word is thrown about too much?
Esthier on April 13, 2009 at 11:16 PM
Night Esthier, night Jetboy
blatantblue on April 13, 2009 at 11:16 PM
Excuse me…. That has got to be the lamest come back ever… On the contrary I have spent a considerable amount of time studying what those scriptures say and what they mean. Just because you dont like hearing it or want it to mean something else doesnt make it so.
doriangrey on April 13, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Night
Esthier on April 13, 2009 at 11:17 PM
G’nite blue.
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Are you Catholic?
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 11:18 PM
has she lost any weight yet? mooooooo
the GOP is irrelevent…and the dem lites who support gay marriage can go to hell, and take the GOP with them…
right4life on April 13, 2009 at 11:19 PM
So, are you daring to suggest that only Catholics can understand scripture?
doriangrey on April 13, 2009 at 11:20 PM
OH THANK GOD! Now that’s right4life is here, we can hear the same recycled Kurtz crap. One trick pony.
SnarkVader on April 13, 2009 at 11:22 PM
HotAir.com:
ALL MEGHAN ALL THE TIME
BayCon on April 13, 2009 at 11:23 PM
but since you are unable to respond to anything he says…looks like the truth hurts..bet you’re fatter than she is!!!
right4life on April 13, 2009 at 11:23 PM
I’ll take that as a “no”.
I’m simply saying your Protestant interpretation of scripture is meaningless to me, as a Catholic.
So it’s really a moot point throwing it at me. Because, to me, you don’t understand it.
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 11:23 PM
Wholesome Waltons moment. LOL
ddrintn on April 13, 2009 at 11:23 PM
We need a party that denounces Meghan McCain.
howIroll on April 13, 2009 at 11:24 PM
If you’re saying: would I make a deal that I would be able to leave my estate to anyone I want, tax free, and leave SS survivor to anyone I want, and all other benefits normally reserved to a spouse, and in return I would support gay marriage, then yes, I would.
jaime on April 13, 2009 at 11:24 PM
oh and you gay marriage supporters are not conservatives, you’re just bending over for the gay lobby, no surprise you would enjoy doing that though.
you’ve lost the arguments, hell ya got no arguments…all ya got left are a bunch of fascist brown-shirt gays imposing their agenda upon people via the courts.
gay ‘marriage’ is all about destroying traditional marriage, making children more vulnerable, and open to the gay movement…they need new recruits…and making christianity a hate crime.
bunch of nazis.
right4life on April 13, 2009 at 11:25 PM
It’s ok, r4l. There are cures readily available for impotence. You no longer have to work out your frustrations on a keyboard.
SnarkVader on April 13, 2009 at 11:26 PM
I see, you are saying that only Catholics can understand scripture. Nice to know that you have the authority to speak on God’s behalf.
doriangrey on April 13, 2009 at 11:27 PM
G’night John-boy!
Yeah, this jet has to taxi to the hangar and shut down the engines for the night. Good to be back in full. Never a dull moment around here.
Peace out.
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 11:27 PM
you prove with every post there ain’t no cure for stupid…fat boy.
right4life on April 13, 2009 at 11:28 PM
Nah, she may be a liberal, but I have a feeling about SnarkVader. I think she is beautiful as in Kirsten Powers beautiful. She has become a thoughtful opponent here after getting a renewed life from Allah.
carbon_footprint on April 13, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Please, go on. Reading your comments is like visiting Somalia on an anthropological expedition. What, do you also believe flush toilets are a sin against God because they’re designed to lull society’s children into a sense of laziness regarding sanitation?
breek on April 13, 2009 at 11:31 PM
Sorry, don’t mean to leave ya hanging, dorian.
But I go by what I believe to be the one, true church. Founded by Christ, infallible, and forever. Every Protestant denomination was founded by a mortal. Scriptural interpretation decided by a mortal.
An infallible scripture needs an infallible interpreter…Christ knew this. So he provided for Peter to head His church on Earth. And the line of the Papacy has been unbroken ever since.
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 11:31 PM
Of course this is The Internet so I could be way wrong. She could be a 358# man from Oregon named Steve.
carbon_footprint on April 13, 2009 at 11:32 PM
Aren’t you claiming that same thing? Oh, but yours is a special authority…
Christianity as a whole does not make sense. If the entire argument for it is, “Believe based on no facts,” and the entire argument for Islam is, “Believe based on no facts” — then how on Earth can you decide between either? You’ve got no guide but your raw emotions, your “intuition,” which no one bothers to define.
breek on April 13, 2009 at 11:32 PM
I wasn’t, but that works too.
I just don’t think the government should get a say in who can and cannot have your stuff tax free, and all the other marriage benefits. Why do they have to come from marriage? Why can’t two friends share those benefits if they have no one else to share them with?
Why are such contractual obligations/benfits tied to love anyway?
I get why churches want and care about that, but not the government.
Esthier on April 13, 2009 at 11:33 PM
I promise you there are people who would love the “right” to marry five wives in the United States, too.
Kensington on April 13, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Ha! No, I’m just a girl watching her Red Sox get pummeled. Oy.
SnarkVader on April 13, 2009 at 11:36 PM
I wish she would just STFU and go away. She is a vacuous no talent done nothing whose only claim to fame is parroting a father who is anathema.
For the love of god, please stop giving her any media attention whatsoever.
America1st on April 13, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Not to get into a big Catholic discussion, but if that’s the case, aren’t you supposed to go with what the Pope says on these issues? I’m not sure how that helps your argument.
Esthier on April 13, 2009 at 11:37 PM
LOL! I accept the silence to my many posts by fellow commenters as an implicit nod of approval.
*sigh*
lansing quaker on April 13, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Are you done with you homework yet before nighty night?
Facts are awful. Just awful. You can do it yourself. Get out on Google and look it up.
The word “probably” is a bit fluffy in this case because AIDS transmission is “probably” much, much higher in the male, homosexual community here in the US. Gotta pad those numbers to make sure it looks like straight people are getting it and to get some more research funds, you know?
http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm
BowHuntingTexas on April 13, 2009 at 11:38 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »