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 … 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
Go away Megan, you do not support nor do you represent Conservatism, especially Judeo-Christian based as our fore fathers wished it.
MNDavenotPC on April 13, 2009 at 11:40 PM
I don’t have any problem with that as long as I have the same “right” to designate anyone I want to receive “spousal” benefits.
jaime on April 13, 2009 at 11:41 PM
I’m curious too.
Spirit of 1776 on April 13, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Your apocalyptic, “teh gheyz r gunna kill us wit teh AIDZ” tripe is less than amusing. True, AIDS mostly affects gays; I will not deny this, nor did I deny it previously. My point is that it is irrelevant to the discussion. Same-sex marriage is not going to magically lead to a public health crisis, nor is there any reason to believe it will.
breek on April 13, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Funny exchange there.
Let me start by saying that I think all faiths from Christ should look to see the similarities rather than the differences. I think Christians are Christians. I also think we all need to acknowledge our base faith of Judaism and never forget to pray for their protection in this world. I’ve said on this site before if push comes to shove, I’d go to Israel as long as I’m still fit enough to do so and fight for her.
Having said all that, Jetboys comment really hit home with me because of something that happened in the past and I still wonder about it.
A female Captain who was my HHC Company Commander converted to Catholicism when we were deployed to Balad Iraq. Her husband was Roman Catholic. We were invited to her confirmation and I was pretty excited to witness it for her. I had attended service with a Catholic girlfriend from school and I didn’t think it would be anything I hadn’t seen before. Everything was okay until it came time for Holy Communion. The Chaplain specifically said that it was for Roman Catholics in the Chapel only and that we would receive a harsh condemnation from the Lord if we ignored his warnings. He also said something like, he knew there were some none Roman Catholics in the Chapel so he didn’t expect everyone to come up. I was probably about 47 or so at the time and thought I had seem it all. I really made several of us feel like second-class Christians.
I’m not saying it shook my faith at all, but it has made me a more “rough around the edges” Christian.
hawkdriver on April 13, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Not to get into a big religious discussion, but if anyone’s trying to justify their opposition to (or, I suppose, support of) same-sex marriage with religion, doesn’t that mean they’re relying on the purported words of an invisible sky monster?
Just saying.
breek on April 13, 2009 at 11:45 PM
It doesn’t help his argument. The Catechism is quite clear, and it’s not easygoing on the matter. My heart goes out to homosexuals, truly, but there’s no denying that a Catholic homosexual is called to an exacting standard. Most would find it difficult, I think, but it is what it is.
Kensington on April 13, 2009 at 11:45 PM
none Roman Catholics=non-Roman Catholic…
hawkdriver on April 13, 2009 at 11:46 PM
This will be overly simple.
Yes it will.
BowHuntingTexas on April 13, 2009 at 11:46 PM
YMcShamnesty’s daughter is a vacuous fat RINO slut.
csdeven on April 13, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Then why not just kill them?
Or ban sodomy altogether?
Or ban extramarital sex?
Oh, right, ’cause then we’d be Saudi Arabia.
breek on April 13, 2009 at 11:47 PM
*sigh*
Working hard to improve the right’s legitimacy, I see…
breek on April 13, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Hey. Take a look here. Look who’s talking about KILLING and BANNING and turning the US into SAUDI ARABIA with SHARIA LAW and everything.
It’s breek !!!!
BowHuntingTexas on April 13, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Sometimes I miss your lilting prose.
jaime on April 13, 2009 at 11:50 PM
At times it is hard to be subtle.
csdeven on April 13, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Your originality stuns me.
breek on April 13, 2009 at 11:53 PM
Exactly.
Do you think if you insult Christians and Christianity enough someone will talk to you? You’re not saying anything people here haven’t heard before, and you’re not at all advancing the conversation.
Feel free to do so, but don’t think we’re ignoring you because you’ve just hit us where it hurts.
Esthier on April 13, 2009 at 11:54 PM
Good gravy. The same old strawman arguments. The militant gay agenda is about insurance rates and getting hetro marrieds to subsidize the premiums of same sex marrieds.
csdeven on April 13, 2009 at 11:55 PM
I don’t get into that. The constructs of natural and civil law are more interesting to me on this topic when talking about making civil law changes.
Spirit of 1776 on April 13, 2009 at 11:55 PM
This is true…but the priest could have, and should have, used a bit more tact.
The Holy Eucharist is meant for Catholics only. A non-Catholic can go up in line, but he/she would receive a blessing from the priest, and that’s it.
In the Catholic Church, it’s pretty serious for a priest (or even a Eucharistic Minister) to give the “wafer” knowingly to a non-Catholic.
And Esthier…Yes, Papal Authority ex cathedra does say engaging in gay sex is wrong, as much as any pre-marital sex is wrong in the eyes of the Church.
That’s something I have to deal with. One thing tho, I would never even think of leaving the Church over this. The Lord will judge me someday. I’ll have to answer for it.
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Reason #290 why Esthier must be granted into the next batch of The Green Room.
Well said.
carbon_footprint on April 13, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Wow, KILLING. You said it. Not me.
BowHuntingTexas on April 13, 2009 at 11:57 PM
The long standing tradition of the United States has been that there is no civil rights imperative for gay activities.
.
In fact, they have been prosecuted under sodomy laws.
.
People can fornicate in any fashion at will, so that is not the goal of legalizing gay activities. The main reason for legalization is to force others to associate with them and to provide them with insurance benefits.
.
Previous votes show that the majority of Americans still believe that there is no biological imperative for homosexuality and that in fact it is an unsafe and unhealthy lifestyle. How can this point of view change all of a sudden without a vote? This is a clear violation of my rights as an American citizen.
.
The gays don’t deserve any civil rights or insurance rights and to impose them on the public is tyranny.
.
FactsofLife on April 13, 2009 at 11:57 PM
No, I just meant that I haven’t seen you around much. Of course, I haven’t been around much, either, so that may account for it.
jaime on April 14, 2009 at 12:00 AM
I think the insults of mccain’s weight are completely inappropriate and counter-productive.
The fact is she has done nothing that would entitle her to more respect than paris hilton.
TTheoLogan on April 14, 2009 at 12:01 AM
Was I whining about being ignored? No. So don’t pretend as if I was.
Also: loving the irritated claims that I’m “insulting” Christianity, when the attacks on gays and the “slightly overweight” here have gone without similar enraged reproach. I hardly think homosexuality and obesity (which, BTW, is a category under which Meghan McCain does not belong) have hurt humanity as much as, say, organized religion. That is a legitimate complaint, and not an ad hominem, which is more than I can say for the rest of the arguments that have been popping up here. If I’m not allowed to criticize the absurdity inherent in religious arguments against gay marriage, then no one, logically, is allowed to criticize gays. Fair’s fair.
How were they “strawmen”? BowHunter or whatever his name is was claiming just what I was rebutting in my comment. If anything, his arguments are the “strawmen.” And, in fact, your argument is also a “strawman” — because I am pro-same-sex marriage and I support neither of the things you claim the “militant gay agenda” is about. I don’t believe anyone’s marriage should be endorsed by the government.
breek on April 14, 2009 at 12:02 AM
Didn’t you already respond to this once?
breek on April 14, 2009 at 12:03 AM
We call this faith.
carbon_footprint on April 14, 2009 at 12:03 AM
I assume you are working through that with God now, or at least hope that’s true.
I don’t presume to know at all times that what I’m doing is correct. I take a lot from the Bible and from my own mind but much of it is a process, one I believe is a gift we’re given in communing with God.
That is to say, I don’t believe anyone needs to wait to be judged but must rather simply talk with God.
Esthier on April 14, 2009 at 12:04 AM
A very respectable position. My response was directed mainly towards those attempting to justify their stances on gay marriage with religion, i.e. faith, i.e. the absence of reason, i.e. the absence of fact. To do so is absurd; I prefer your path (“constructs of natural and civil law”).
breek on April 14, 2009 at 12:04 AM
JetBoy, you don’t have to wait, the bible has been clear about God’s position for a long time.
By the way, something you said earlier… that you didn’t care about other countries, just about now and in the U.S. where you are.
That’s the problem. You have no concern for the effects of your actions.
TTheoLogan on April 14, 2009 at 12:05 AM
Has anyone else here read Allan Bloom’s “The Closing of the American Mind”?
Send_Me on April 14, 2009 at 12:05 AM
Morality is rarely if ever based on tangible fact. Just ask Mao, Stalin and Lenin.
TTheoLogan on April 14, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Yes, and that’s the problem. I’d say Osama and his pals might have had a little too much of that on 9/11.
breek on April 14, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Yes, because, after all, anyone who believes in the supernatural must be associated with bin laden.
Breek, I think it’s far to associate you with mao, lenin, stalin, pol pot…
TTheoLogan on April 14, 2009 at 12:07 AM
JetBoy is not hateful..
I’m a southern baptist. I would love him and hug him and squeeze him and call him George…
..but fully clothed…:)
GoodBoy on April 14, 2009 at 12:08 AM
True, in the sense that it is not rooted strictly in concretes. But abstractions are (or should be) derived from concretes, i.e. good is not just a floating abstraction, what is “good” must be “good for” someone or something, etc. The alternative to saying that morality is rooted in objective facts is saying that morality is rooted in no facts of reality at all. How, then, do you respond to Muslims who say that their supernatural deity tells them to kill you — regardless of what your deity asserts? Nothing can help you in that situation, because you are engaging in a fight of factless belief against factless belief.
breek on April 14, 2009 at 12:09 AM
All believers are welcome in our church.
hawkdriver on April 14, 2009 at 12:09 AM
It isn’t about endorsements. It is about those involved in high risk behavior getting themselves defined under different terms so their high risk behavior can be shouldered by those who do not engage in said behavior.
The second gay unions are called “marriage” is the second that insurance companies have to treat ALL marrieds equally. They cannot distinguish between hetro or gay. Gays not only have the issues that the general population has, but add to that their decreased life expectancy etc, they will use insurance benefits at a higher rates than hetros do. Insurance companies have no choice other than to raise rates on EVERYONE who falls under the term “married”.
This is exactly what the gay agenda is all about. Anyone who thinks anything else and supports them is simply a useful idiotic tool.
csdeven on April 14, 2009 at 12:10 AM
breek on April 13, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Yup. It’s breek on April 13, 2009 at 11:47 PM talking about killing people.
BowHuntingTexas on April 14, 2009 at 12:11 AM
Those, too, were “religious” in their own ways. They had “faith” in materialist doctrines. Sorelian dogma, which claimed that a lie can be useful (facts be damned), was incredibly popular with Marxists and other varieties of socialists.
In short, communists were no fans of rationality. I have never claimed that to be an atheist is to automatically be a reasonable person. It takes great effort to conform to the demands of reality, and many people fail entirely, or refuse to try at all.
breek on April 14, 2009 at 12:11 AM
No, but neither do kids who refuse to shut up while their moms are on the phone. They just keep talking, hoping someone will listen.
You certainly have some gall talking about insults against gays as though all Christians have been engaging in that behavior. Perhaps you didn’t bother to read the gays who posted here, both naming themselves as Catholics.
So, you’re upset they were insulted and decided to insult them further?
Brilliant.
As to Megan, no she isn’t obese, but then again, most of us have never said she was. When she first started getting attention, many, like myself, tried to ask people to tone that crap down but weren’t listened to.
See, this is a very old topic by now, not one you’ve just only recently opened our eyes to.
Are you done yet, or do you need to rant more about religion and sky people? Because, and I don’t want this to sound rude, if you’re not, then don’t take my silence for acceptance of defeat or proof you’ve angered me, it’s just that I’m bored with that shtick and have already said my piece on the subject.
Esthier on April 14, 2009 at 12:11 AM
Yes. I said something. You responded. It was funny. It got some half-hearted laughs. We’ve been over this.
breek on April 14, 2009 at 12:12 AM
George?
Esthier on April 14, 2009 at 12:13 AM
Apparently the ongoing effort to boost the self-esteem of young people is enjoying great success. I’d have a hard time swallowing this much overweening self-importance and empty greeting-card prose if I agreed with what she was saying. Actually, I suppose that would make it even harder. Next she’ll be telling us her latest Really Deep Thoughts on tolerance and understanding have “rocked” people around the globe.
If she despises labels and boxes this much, her medicine cabinet must be a horror.
I’m glad she condescended to clear that up for all of us knuckle-dragging primitives. I feel bad that she had to repeat herself in order for me to understand her wisdom. I especially appreciate the way she reminded us of what the Declaration of Independence said. “All men are created equal” – that really just answers every complex question of morality, legality, and social development in a totally awesome way! And I’m certain the men who wrote those words would be delighted to hear them invoked as an absolute, brook-no-argument endorsement of gay marriage, polygamy, and incestuous marriage, since as Meg thoughtfully explained just moments ago, “people who fall in love should have the option to get married.” I sure don’t see any “buts” or “excepts” lurking in that sentence!
Here we see young Meg making a breathtaking leap away from her illustrious father and coming into her own as a public intellectual, as she has just declared John McCain to be “un-American.” After all, his signature McCain-Feingold legislation certainly treats people unequally. So does his beloved amnesty legislation, which is openly contemptuous of legal immigrants who followed the rules for becoming American citizens, and treats illegal aliens unequally by showering them with benefits. I’m thankful for the generous respect Meg shows people who might disagree with her – you may have a difference of opinion on certain lifestyles, as long as you realize that makes you both un-Republican and un-American. When it comes to the great social questions of the day, Meghan McCain says, “let a thousand flowers bloom!”… her righteously enlightened flower, plus 999 treasonous, un-American flowers.
You know who else we treat unequally? Criminals. That’s just got to stop. I’m sure Meghan would be happy to offer her home to paroled felons, who will appreciate her dislike of stereotypes, boxes, and labels. I can just imagine Meghan happily spending her days organizing block parties for her new neighborhood full of violent felons, with a few ex-Gitmo detainees thrown in for multiculturalism’s sake.
I’m glad to see the publishing industry has decided to seat Meg in the recently-endowed Christopher Buckley chair for vacuous idiots with famous last names. I hope part of her six-figure book deal includes a complimentary gift basket full of straw men, and a collection of “Schoolhouse Rock” DVDs, so she can learn more about this Declaration of Independence thing she seems so interested in. If the publishers are smart, they’ll slip in a rider that docks her $1000 for every time she begins a sentence with “I”.
Doctor Zero on April 14, 2009 at 12:13 AM
1 corinthians 5.
TTheoLogan on April 14, 2009 at 12:15 AM
Good luck with that.
BowHuntingTexas on April 14, 2009 at 12:16 AM
That sounds like a lot of words that you could have easily summarized in “blah.”
TTheoLogan on April 14, 2009 at 12:16 AM
It’s an old Bugs Bunny cartoon.
GoodBoy on April 14, 2009 at 12:16 AM
Somebody take her to the top of the Chrysler building and toss a box of twinkies over the edge.
Make sure to video tape it for Youtube HD please!
BillaryMcBush on April 14, 2009 at 12:18 AM
If this is “no new topic,” then why are you berating me as if it were? If I’m just an annoying kid waiting for mommy to get off the phone, why not ignore me? You have that ability. It’s much easier to shun someone on the Internet; it’s not like I’m yelling in your ear.
And, please, I don’t care if I change your mind or not, so don’t pretend I do. For the last time, if you don’t respond to me — if no one responds to me — I will not be heartbroken. I’ve had my say, I’m happy. So long as people keep replying to me with snide comments, however, I will feel free to reply in kind. (And that’s not a complaint, it’s a fact.)
(Side-note: “Acceptance of defeat”? What, are we kickboxing? I don’t argue to “defeat” someone, I argue to argue. “I don’t want this to sound rude,” but: get over yourself — you’re not worth that much to me.)
breek on April 14, 2009 at 12:18 AM
I didn’t understand the reference. Do you think I’m boasting or being insincere?
hawkdriver on April 14, 2009 at 12:18 AM
Did you read it?
TTheoLogan on April 14, 2009 at 12:19 AM
Loving the astute arguments of the religious.
breek on April 14, 2009 at 12:20 AM
I didn’t need to. I’m familiar with the verse and passage.
hawkdriver on April 14, 2009 at 12:20 AM
Wow, can you recite the whole thing without looking?
TTheoLogan on April 14, 2009 at 12:21 AM
Okay, not to be a hypocrite, but that’s worth props.
breek on April 14, 2009 at 12:21 AM
Breek, using big words to mask silly and spacious arguments doesn’t always work, except if your name is obama.
TTheoLogan on April 14, 2009 at 12:21 AM
Finally found the Bugs Cartoon.. With Daffy Duck too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JlVqfC8-UI
GoodBoy on April 14, 2009 at 12:22 AM
I didn’t say that. I said I was familiar with it.
hawkdriver on April 14, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Thanks. I couldn’t find the reference.
I’m not. I can see why you may have thought I was since we haven’t talked, but I’m much different when I’m berating someone. right4life would know. He doesn’t like me.
And yet you feel the need to respond that. This being the same evidence you used to try and pretend I was berating you.
I’m not being snide, but clear, explaining exactly how I see the situation lest their be any confusion. And now I’m done.
I would have left this sooner, but I wanted to know what “George” was all about.
Esthier on April 14, 2009 at 12:24 AM
HA HA. Real funny !!!! /s
breek over here talking about killing and what not. Very funny. /s
BowHuntingTexas on April 14, 2009 at 12:27 AM
TTheoLoga, if you were trying to explain to me why the Roman Catholic Church wouldn’t allow a Protestent to receive the Holy Communion, then you’ve confused me. That scripture had nothing to do with who would be welcome at the Lords Table.
Is that what you were trying to say?
hawkdriver on April 14, 2009 at 12:29 AM
My fault. I always misinterpret emotions over the Internet. My apologies, Esthier.
You were being snide, unless you define it differently than every other English-speaking person does.
This is nothing but snide:
Don’t get high-and-mighty with me about rudeness when you’re the queen of it.
breek on April 14, 2009 at 12:30 AM
…”astute” is a big word?
breek on April 14, 2009 at 12:32 AM
Look, God made men with holes knowing with complete certainty that there will be idiot men who will stick their junk in anything to get a thrill, no matter how disgusting and vile it is to some others, (or is it bile) .
And there will be men who let them without beating the cr@p off them! As my sister used to say, there is someone for everyone.
So, if not a part of the plan, at least it could have been anticipated! So, by default, gay men couples always were a certainty.
And gay women would are cool, but could you at least try to look girl-girl?
Marriage for everybody? Sure why not, as long as you can find a church to join you, or at least not hose you down to get you apart.
Contracts should continue to be a State matter, and everyone should be equal under the law as long as the parties are 18+./s (don’t hate)
AZCON on April 14, 2009 at 12:36 AM
Good luck with that.
BowHuntingTexas on April 14, 2009 at 12:37 AM
hawk, the passage is clear about whether or not churches should have members, attendees that continue to live in public sin. Do you think homosexuality is worse than fornication, as is the case in 1 cor 5? Do you think it’s better?
Your later post said you are catholic, which I guess explains some things, so I guess my point is moot.
TTheoLogan on April 14, 2009 at 12:37 AM
Read your previous post with all the dribble that could have been summarized in “blah.”
TTheoLogan on April 14, 2009 at 12:37 AM
…are you 6?
breek on April 14, 2009 at 12:40 AM
What we NEED is a GOP that supports and protects the Constitution of both the States and the U.S.
I see McCain passed his RINO gene to his kids.
nelsonknows on April 14, 2009 at 12:42 AM
A long time ago. I’m afraid I don’t remember the details very well.
What I remember the most, though, is how eye-opening it was, in a particular way that has almost nothing to do with its contents.
I was in college when it was released, and a reflexive liberal in that thoughtless way that catches lots of young people. Rolling Stone Magazine said the book was awful, the FM shock jocks said it was awful, and the only commentary I ever encountered in my young guy/college circles said it was awful. I took their word for it.
It wasn’t until years later when my friend’s conservative father brought the book up in conversation that I first came to realize that not everyone thought it was awful, and that, in fact, a lot of people thought it was profound, just no one remotely connected to youth culture.
I always think about that as a reminder of how insular the young have it, even more so nowadays. It’s no wonder they take everything that Jon Stewart and Bill Maher say at face value.
Kensington on April 14, 2009 at 12:43 AM
5.
TTheoLogan on April 14, 2009 at 12:44 AM
I didn’t say I was Catholic.
hawkdriver on April 14, 2009 at 12:46 AM
Didn’t you just talk to me about the holy catholic church in context of “your church?”
TTheoLogan on April 14, 2009 at 12:47 AM
well, i’m out for this thread. i need to actually do some work.
cya
TTheoLogan on April 14, 2009 at 12:51 AM
No, Jetboy, a Catholic, was explaining to me as why as a non-Catholic I’d be denied Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic Church.
I was saying everyone in my church is welcome to receive the sacrament.
I’m a Protestant.
hawkdriver on April 14, 2009 at 12:52 AM
bleh. That bubble-head is played out.
She’s certainly a putz and about as sharp as a bowling ball. Plus, she just signed a six-figure deal for a crappy book. Can you say “FREE PUBLICITY WHORE”?
Does anyone even take her seriously anymore?
One can only imagine how often her maid has to wash the white-out off her computer screen.
SilverStar830 on April 14, 2009 at 12:56 AM
How did the Holy Communion become something more than what Jesus commanded of us in St. Matthew? He broke the bread and offered the wine with no mention of a transubstantiation.
He didn’t even say a clergyman was required to oversee the ceremony. He simply said, “This do in remembrance of me”.
hawkdriver on April 14, 2009 at 12:59 AM
Someone needs to explain federalism to this “RINO thorn in the side: The Next Generation.”
Chubbs65 on April 14, 2009 at 1:06 AM
Hogwash. People are treated unequally every day. The rich pay a much greater percentage of taxes than the poor. Affirmative action programs give advantages to people based on skin color. Dopeheads have to worry about the cops, alcoholics don’t. People forfeit rights when they commit crimes. I could go on and on. There’s a word for absolute and total equality: anarchy. It’s a term oblivious to the pro-gay marriage crowd because they refuse to see where all this is headed.
Erich66 on April 14, 2009 at 1:12 AM
Anyone want to tackle that question later, I’d be real interested in a Catholic take on it.
hawkdriver on April 14, 2009 at 1:17 AM
Although I might agree those are all valid cases, they don’t do anything to break away from the typical partisan divide.
Here’s the thing, if it un-American to treat people differently, then how do we treat people who are “un-American”?
What about “minors”? Doesn’t a legal minor status qualify as “a position that wants to treat people unequally”. Here, I’m accepting that children are people. It’s funny how this inequality plays the role of the boundary: “Of course we’re talking about consenting adults!!!” So this “inequality” of adult/minor makes the other inequality suspect, simply by being an inequality of recognition.
Of course, a minority liberal faction thinks that this is also artificial, and needs to be done away with.
Axeman on April 14, 2009 at 2:05 AM
Beta Female
Big Orange on April 14, 2009 at 2:11 AM
So gay marriage is the biggest problem the country face according to Meghan McCain?
Wow. Who’d have thought!
Beta Female? No. She’s not even beta. She’s somewhere near omega.
Penguin on April 14, 2009 at 2:15 AM
Back to the thread…………..
……… what was I talking about?
Seven Percent Solution on April 14, 2009 at 2:20 AM
Here we have the same old tired argument that somehow getting a marriage license is a “right”. Marriage is a contract and it’s rules, stipulations, and restrictions are covered under contract law. The rules covering contracts are set by the people or their Representatives in government and can be changed by the will of the people. Rights are endowed upon you by virtue of your existence and can never be changed. One rule regarding marriage is that you can’t get married for the sole purpose of obtaining US citizenship. Such marriages have been ruled null and void by courts for decades. Rights are never “null and void”. Getting a marriage license is no more a right than getting a drivers license.
Also, I don’t understand why she thinks Republicans can win elections if they change their position on this issue. Elections on this issue, even in blue states like CA, indicate most voters favor marriage as 1 man and 1 woman only. Changing their position will result in less elections won by Republicans.
Dollayo on April 14, 2009 at 2:37 AM
The GOP can have their pro-gay marriage stance for all I care. I’m part of the Conservative party; I’m no long with the Republicans, who grow less and less conservative by the day, by and large.
Jockolantern on April 14, 2009 at 2:45 AM
I bet Ms. McCain could handle an interview with Katie Couric, too.
Just sayin’.
benny shakar on April 14, 2009 at 2:52 AM
Order UP!
………… Unintended Consequences!
Seven Percent Solution on April 14, 2009 at 4:58 AM
We need Meghan McCain, who has been a Republican for less than a year and a half, to go away.
manofaiki on April 14, 2009 at 5:05 AM
And salads.
lodge on April 14, 2009 at 6:12 AM
Megan, you should go back to the dimtard moonbats where you belong.
dogsoldier on April 14, 2009 at 6:26 AM
I wonder how she’d do with Couric if she said anything remotely Conservative.
The tenor of the interview always hinges on that point with liberal newspersons.
hawkdriver on April 14, 2009 at 6:37 AM
Who cares what this silly woman says? I mean really.
Terrye on April 14, 2009 at 7:06 AM
As far as gay marriage goes, it kind of bugs me to think about it, but the states should have the final say in this. I don’t think that a Federal Amendment would pass, the hurdle is too high.
Terrye on April 14, 2009 at 7:07 AM
yawn. dismissed.
marklmail on April 14, 2009 at 7:16 AM
This, like so many other things for some time, is just a canard. Homosexuality is abnormal… without applying a value judgment… in the same sense that of 100 ping pong balls where 98 or 99 are red and 1 or 2 are blue. The blue ones are statistically abnormal. They deviate from the mean. No denying it.
Our society is bound together by two basic factors. Common laws equally applied and common social mores or values. Both have been being systematically under attack for some time. Years ago, there was a certain stigma to being a welfare recipient. Now the income must be included on credit applications and treated the same as income from a job. It wasn’t illegal but it was socially unacceptable. I chose that example because it is not based in a religious value though most of our common social values are.
Laws are not equally applied. There is a political class that seems to get preference over normal citizens. A strong case could also be made for the wealthy but I think that really ties back to political.
Teen pregnancy or out of wedlock child birth used to be socially frowned upon. This is a healthy social value because it provides a strong family unit to provide for the children. Today, we have birth control more readily available than any time in history but out of wedlock pregnancies, births and abortions are also at astronomical levels.
Because so many of our common values can be traced to a religious value, you can effectively destroy the value by attacking religion. I could repeat example after example and the common thread is either a direct attack by the left on our legal system or common social values… all with one goal. Desctruction of our society.
CC
CapedConservative on April 14, 2009 at 7:48 AM
And this air head and her dad wonder why they lost last nov.Meghan there is a party that belives ever thing that you and your dad do .It,s called the Dem. party and the sooner you and your dad go there the better
thmcbb on April 14, 2009 at 7:50 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Next »