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 … 4 5 6 7 Next »
After the number of recent posts by Allahpundit on Meghan McCain, I have concluded that Allahpundit has the hots for her.
By the way, if conservatives can include atheists, why can’t they include gays? Just asking, and I happen to accept the first chapter in Paul’s letter to the Romans as stating the truth as to the latter subject.
Phil Byler on April 14, 2009 at 7:56 AM
Who says they aren’t “accepted”.
Being against gay marriage, is not the same as being against gays…that is the liberal argument, don’t buy into it.
right2bright on April 14, 2009 at 8:09 AM
When will this chick admit shes just a loonie lefty??
Viper1 on April 14, 2009 at 8:11 AM
The Supreme Court doesn’t agree with you on the marriage-as-a-right question. Also, the GOP has been losing elections to Democrats who are perceived more favorably by supporters of gay marriage.
dedalus on April 14, 2009 at 8:16 AM
Now wait a minute, I think Meg is on to something. Just think how many votes we could get if we just abandoned principle! The implications are enormous. Gay marriage, absolutely! Gay adoption, you betcha! But why stop there? Let’s go for polygamists too. Haven’t you seen the show Big Love? A bunch of families like that would be worth a crap-load of votes. And sadomasochists, there must be a lot of those. Just looking at any San Franciso gathering and you can see enough leather to make a PETA member fall over in a faint. And think about what we could gain from endorsing necrophilia! We could actually compete for the dead vote in Chicago.
This is genius. Meg you magnificent biatch, you’ve saved the GOP! sarc
SoonerMarine on April 14, 2009 at 8:17 AM
So how about her being interviewed by Laura Ingraham, let’s see how well the little McCain does then…and Laura of course can edit however she wants.
right2bright on April 14, 2009 at 8:17 AM
I just read a few pages of comments… plenty of them.
But the great majority of the comments have nothing to do with the subject at hand. We aren’t here to discuss the legitimacy of gay marriage. We should be talking about this attempt to REDEFINE the party.
Feel free to change the definition of what comprises the GOP.
And you will ensure the Democrats will maintain power indefinitely.
My guesses:
2/3 of the current GOP will break off to create a third party.
10% of the Democrats will break off to join the GOP.
This has the same effect as Ross Perot or Ralph Nader did to the Democrats…. split the vote.
Mark_Tampa on April 14, 2009 at 8:20 AM
Every time I read a quote from this girl I’m reminded of how much I wanted to feel relevent and unique when I was an adolescent/twenty-something. Life is so much easier when you don’t have to be special.
Of course, she’s also cashing in like numerous RINOs have in the past…
Dork B. on April 14, 2009 at 8:42 AM
She’s so brilliant. Please post more of her! Please do a hotair interview with her!!
/sarc
bridgetown on April 14, 2009 at 9:06 AM
We need a republican that is a dumbocrat.
Tremmy on April 14, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Sure. Let the G.O.P. abandon Conservatism and embrace every Liberal and Moderate idea. Then rename it Democratic Party Number 2. Brilliant.
kingsjester on April 14, 2009 at 9:17 AM
I don’t see how the GOP is going to be competitive with young people without at least ending its opposition to gay marriage. Many of the sons and daughters of the Pennsylvania GOP matrons who voted against Rick Santorum for his statements that reflected hatred of gay people aren’t going to accept anything less than gay marriage. These are exactly the swing voters in Pennsylvania. It’s why Arlen Specter can win this state and Peg Lusik and Pat Toomey can’t. I want a fiscally responsible government, but anti-gay bigotry in the GOP is a major obstacle to it.
thuja on April 14, 2009 at 9:17 AM
We need a national GOP that doesn’t care about gay marriage. Why should the government tell people what they can and can’t do? It’s a state issue, if local GOP parties in some states don’t like gay marriage, and others do, that’s fine.
Why is Meghan trying to force her standards onto others? And does she really think that we’d get more voters by supporting gay marriage than we get by opposing it? From a purely pragmatic standpoint, the numbers don’t add up, because most gay marriage supporters will tend to be Democrats.
hawksruleva on April 14, 2009 at 9:22 AM
She is the best excuse to overturn the 19th amendment.
right2bright on April 14, 2009 at 9:24 AM
Oh – I’m sure this has been pointed out, but the GOP’s current position seems to be favored by the people of California. Would taking positions Californians like help us win that state?
hawksruleva on April 14, 2009 at 9:25 AM
We need a GOP without Meghan McCain. Seriously, what’s up with her and Frum this year? Seem like undercover agents from the left hellbent on causing dissension in the ranks.
therightscoop on April 14, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Still trying to figure out why Meghan McCain gets any press or gets mentioned here so often.
All I can figure is she is hoping to run for daddy’s office when he retires.
albill on April 14, 2009 at 9:27 AM
That should be the main concern of the GOP. Dems are also officially against gay marriage but avoid being perceived as intolerant. In the North East the GOP has been decimated. If the GOP lead with more pro-family ideas their overall message would perform better. The idea that the GOP will help save the family by stopping the gays doesn’t work in the North East, and in PA it won’t work with main line voters.
dedalus on April 14, 2009 at 9:29 AM
She lost me. AP please stop with the headlining of this confused Republican.
She is now firmly in the Kathleen Parker category. Wasted digital space.
FireBlogger on April 14, 2009 at 9:36 AM
I am incredibly late to this game but here’s my two cents. As I’ve said before, I work for an entertainment company in SoCal that is a liberal mecca. Being conservative where I work is like being gay in the 50′s. You stay in the closet. But I tell ya. The vast majority of the people I work with I think would vote conservative if you could pluck the gay marriage issue and abortion out of the debate.
I stand around the coffee machine and listen to them bitch about the new taxes that just went into effect here in Ca. About the crazy deficit spending Obama is spearheading. Porkulus, etc. Immigration will get even the most crazy liberal to see red where I work (good union folk). But you should have seen the place the day after Prop 8 was passed. Gay and strait alike. Walking around like a truck hit them. Heh. I admit I did enjoy that they all couldn’t fully enjoy Obama winning. But boy have many of them soured on him now. And if he keeps up what he’s been doing… Well, they’ll still vote for him because even though he stated he’s against gay marriage, he doesn’t do a thing about it.
oddjob1138 on April 14, 2009 at 9:37 AM
FIFY
Akzed on April 14, 2009 at 9:43 AM
She’s worth gzillions of dollars. When she wants to put her idiocy into practice, she will open the purse strings.
Akzed on April 14, 2009 at 9:45 AM
AP, please quit linking to articles about Meghan McCain. She’s as relevant as her father. They’re so 2008.
Oink on April 14, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Pa may have swing votes in Philly and Pittsburgh, but the center of the state will not support gay marriage. So the GOP supporting gay marriage would pull in swing votes, but alienate all the counties that voted GOP.
My 21 yr old supports gay marriage, but is against abortion. She will vote for the party who isnt on board with killing babies.
becki51758 on April 14, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Please, no more Megan McCain? Please??????
blue13326 on April 14, 2009 at 9:52 AM
But, in Pennsylvania, she could end up voting for a socialist like Bob Casey!
The Casey-Santorum matchup was an awful predicament for many of us.
thuja on April 14, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Finally she comes out of the closet.
Jerricho68 on April 14, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Quite frankly when Meghan McCain starts running the GOP I will stop voting it’s ticket. I’m already ready to join the Conservative Party and tell the GOP to go jump in the lake! Meghan McCain just makes me kinow more and more that GOP is now Democrat Light!
Vntnrse on April 14, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Ms. McCain:
Regardless of party or politics on issues, America needs young people with the guts to stand up against Fascism, Meghan. Barbie doll image be your heart’s desire, be the grown up you feign and at least show a glimmer of the integrity your dad had. Prove your dad’s legacy against government authorized terrorism. Stand against Napolitano, your former Governor. You want to be taken seriously, do something real from Arizona. Otherwise, be known as one of those rich elitists considering yourself above anything substantial, dismissing rule of law for instance.
maverick muse on April 14, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Did anyone bother to teach this poor girl about the birds and the bees? That a man and woman are equal but DIFFERENT?
Any man has the right to marry one woman, and any woman has the right to marry one man, as long as they both agree, and what’s unequal about that?
Besides, there are plenty of situations where single people of the same sex live in the same house or apartment to cut expenses. The law has nothing to say if they “fall in love” with each other.
So, if life begins at conception, doesn’t the baby have a right to be loved and raised by its mother and father? How is the child to “honor thy father and thy mother” if one of them isn’t there?
We DON’T need a GOP that supports gay marriage, but a party that supports traditional one-man-one-woman marriage.
Without her last name and her famous father, Meghan McCain would be a not-so-great unknown. To save his honor, John McCain should make his darling daughter have a long lip-lock with duct tape.
Steve Z on April 14, 2009 at 10:27 AM
McCain knows what side her bread is buttered on. The second she stops hurting the GOP, she stops getting airtime.
We all know what that makes her, but it wouldn’t be “productive” to say it.
Merovign on April 14, 2009 at 10:33 AM
It is helpful to have people like Meghan who are young, urban and Republican. Opposition to gay marriage decreases as you move to younger demographics. For many young people the perception that the GOP is unwelcoming to gays is a show stopper. If the GOP leads with fiscal responsibility, pro-small-business, pro-family initiatives it can win young voters who are entrepreneurial and looking for a government that doesn’t intrude on their lives and bury their generation in debt.
dedalus on April 14, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Let ‘em marry donkeys.
Griz on April 14, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Hasn’t the 15 minute clock run out on the valspeaking daughter of John McCain yet?
scullymj on April 14, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Says the person who railed on Christianity for an hour, trying to get a rise out of someone, insulting the very people he claimed to be offended on behalf of.
Thanks for giving me a laugh.
They’re also perceived as supporters of all minorities, a perception that won’t change just because we embrace gay marriage.
And considering we’ve only lost the last two elections, and gay marriage couldn’t even pass in California, even though the state went for Obama, I don’t see how supporting gay marriage would help in any way whatsoever in a purely political fashion.
So far as I can see, most people are economically liberal and socially conservative. They want government handouts and vote accordingly but also seem to agree with “traditional” marriage, which is why even the Democrats had to pay lip service to it.
Esthier on April 14, 2009 at 12:04 PM
You’re being kind in calling her a Republican. The woman has only been one for a year and only changed her registration because her father was our nominee.
Make no mistake. She’ll change her affiliation as soon as it’s convenient, but so long as she’s a “cool” Republican, it works out very well for her.
We need more young, hip Republicans, but we don’t need opportunists.
Esthier on April 14, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Prop 8 “no” got 47% of the vote which is 5x to 10x the percentage of voters who are gay. Given long term trends gay marriage will likely pass in CA in the next few years–NJ is next and in NY the governor is set to promote a bill through the legislature this week.
Actually, I think there is an appeal to be made to young people who are pro-business and social moderates. For better or worse Meghan is making that appeal. Is there anyone else in the GOP who is currently attracting young urban voters?
National GOP figures should say they think a traditional family with a mom and a dad is the best environment for kids and that we need to help all families. As for gay marriage it is being handled in the states where it should.
dedalus on April 14, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Ok, so let’s drive away all the social conservatives from the Republican party in order to attract some young voters who supposedly want to vote Republican but won’t do so because of gay marriage. Do you really believe there are more of these “young voters” than there are social conservatives? Whether you like it or not, social conservatives are a crucial voting block for the Republicans. They are far more likely to work for campaigns and show up to vote than these “young” voters you seem eager to attract. How committed to Republican principles could someone even be in the first place if they are willing to switch over to the Democrat party simply because it is less forceful in it’s opposition to gay marriage?
frank63 on April 14, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Maybe. Her dad has been a GOP member of congress for decades and the most recent party nominee. Many contend that he isn’t a real Republican and question Meghan for some of the same reasons.
Most people in their 20′s trying to start their post college careers in urban areas tend to have views more similar to Meghan’s than to say Coulter’s.
Meghan may not be the solution, but she points to the paucity of GOP figures who are connecting to young voters.
dedalus on April 14, 2009 at 12:28 PM
ORLY
Ortzinator on April 14, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Given their age, young voters can’t be very committed since they’ve only recently reached adulthood. It is possible to support traditional values without using the government as a mechanism to enforce them.
There are other bones to throw to social conservatives. Opposing gay marriage won’t be available sometime in the next decade, due to states granting the right and younger voters replacing older voters.
dedalus on April 14, 2009 at 12:38 PM
As much as I don’t like it, I think you’re right here. The support for gay marriage will eventually tip over the 50% mark nationally at which point ALL Democratic politicians will do an about face and become aggressive supporters of gay marriage. By then the Supreme Court will be packed with activist liberals who will use the power of the court to force acceptance of gay marriage on all of society. The heavy hand of the federal government will come down hard on any dissension similar to what happened to racists in the South during the 50s and 60s.
That’s the problem. Once gay marriage supporters feel they have national popular opinion on their side, they will be all too willing to use the power of the federal government to force their agenda on ALL states. States that try fight against gay marriage will be looked at and treated like Mississippi of 1964.
frank63 on April 14, 2009 at 12:40 PM
How is this not already equal? Any man regardless of sexual preference can get married. The problem is that marriage is between a man and a woman. I say we take marriage out of the hands of the govt. No more marriage license fees! The idea of marriage came from religion, not the US govt.
I don’t have a huge problem with allowing gays visit each other in the hospital, etc. Or pay their taxes using married rates. And then they can sue each other when they separate as well. No biggie… But marriage is 1 man and 1 woman, it began with Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
jeffn21 on April 14, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Yeah. Many conservatives opposed to civil rights in the early 1960′s had very principled reasons to oppose the way the federal government as acting. However, the manifest unfairness of segregation gave proponents of federal action the popular support they needed.
Articulating a federalist position on gay marriage may ultimately help the party in the long run.
dedalus on April 14, 2009 at 12:49 PM
And different reasons, like her vote for Kerry in 2004, despite her claims that she supports the war and our troops.
The way I see it, as a “cool” Republican, she’s an anomaly to her liberal peers, but as a liberal who kinda supports the military, she’s lame and won’t get any airtime.
I wouldn’t argue that only gay people want gay marriage, but what I was arguing what that even in California, even among Obama voters (who took the state with 61% of the vote), it passed.
Not even all Democrats want gay marriage, not even all Democrats in a state as blue as California.
Maybe in a few more years this will change, but to me, that’s very telling.
The only people I know like that are libertarians who either voted Ron Paul or went ahead and voted McCain anyway. If they’re really that much pro-business, they won’t vote Democrat no matter the social issue.
I’m not convinced she’s attracting anyone.
It’s never been cool to be Republican, and I really don’t see her changing that.
Practically speaking, we are. There’s really nothing else we can do. One of our primary contenders was even Mitt Romney who governed over a state with gay marriage (even ordering the first certificates to be written), not that, that earned him any praise from liberals or those young, moderate adults whatsoever.
Esthier on April 14, 2009 at 12:50 PM
And it is also possible for gay people to enjoy their lives together without using the government as a mechanism to enforce a new definition of marriage on everyone else.
frank63 on April 14, 2009 at 12:55 PM
We don’t need miss piggy McCain, but if we have to have one, it needs to be one that can shut the f*ck up.
Someone stuff an old sock in this pigs mouth already.
Spiritk9 on April 14, 2009 at 1:00 PM
I see how changes to the divorce laws enforce a change on everyone, but don’t see how gays marrying changes the marriage of any straight people.
Further, though, I call people married if they say they are without asking what church or state they were married in. Some may be effectively common-law but not gone through a ceremony. Won’t the terminology follow based on whether gays do things like commit for life, jointly own a home, raise kids?
dedalus on April 14, 2009 at 1:08 PM
She maybe thought her dad was going to be Kerry’s Veep :-)
dedalus on April 14, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Heh. Nice.
Esthier on April 14, 2009 at 1:17 PM
I’ve never said that gay marriage would have any affect on my marriage. But it will have an affect on my life. Honestly, if two gay people want to be in a relationship and call it a marriage, fine that’s their business. As a christian I think that’s wrong but it’s ultimately between them and God. My concern is that once gay marriage is given government sanction, then gay activists will become emboldened to push for further government intrusion into MY life. Just having a piece of paper that says they are married will NOT be enough for many gays. They will demand that all societal institutions give full approval to their marriage and will scream discrimination against any offenders . I really don’t care of two gay people get “married”, but I do care if my child goes to a public school and is taught that they are a homophobic bigot if they don’t believe in gay marriage. I do care when I see private businesses being forced to compromise THEIR principles if they do not cow-tow to the gay agenda. If we could all just say “live and let live” I’d be ok here but I’m afraid that’s not going to happen. By successfully (and I think falsely) framing their cause in the same context as racial discrimination, the gay movement has successfully turned their movement into a moral crusade where the power of the goverment will be used to stamp out all “bigotry”. The problem though is this…while support for gay marriage is increasing, it will never become a settled issue like race is. It’s just too tied to religion in a way that race never was. Eventually support for gay marriage will reach some type of ceiling and then level off. It will remain a divisive and polarizing issue similar to abortion. Unless some type of compromise is reached this culture war will wage on. No matter which side gets it’s way so to speak, somebody’s “rights” are going to get violated.
frank63 on April 14, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Why do gay people need to force government sanctioning of their weird lifestyle?
ObamatheMessiah on April 14, 2009 at 1:43 PM
I agree, but I thought we had that already. I actually liked Sarah’s comments on this issue. She mentioned that her family is similar….they get along, although some feel this way, other think that way. It’s not a big divisive issue.
There are plenty of Republicans who love their gay children and would, of course, love to see them happy as clams.
AnninCA on April 14, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Obamamessiah…..everyone’s lifestyle but mine is wierd. :)
AnninCA on April 14, 2009 at 1:47 PM
She must be dissapointed that married male gays can’t abort babies.
But luckily for her world-view, lesbians can get the best of all worlds, marriage and abortion.
notagool on April 14, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Meghan McCain,
We need a GOP that doesn’t have you or your DAD in it!
JihadKiller1s1k on April 14, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Except she says she’s pro-life.
Esthier on April 14, 2009 at 2:08 PM
This is a pretty lame argument. She voted for John Kerry after he had already picked his VP. She didn’t just vote for John Kerry for President but also voted for John Edwards for Vice President.
Dollayo on April 14, 2009 at 2:12 PM
So I suppose she’s all for distribution of wealth so everyone can be equally impoverished too…that sounds real fair to a simpleton like her.
kirkill on April 14, 2009 at 2:17 PM
I think anti-discrimination efforts have resulted in government overreach and would prefer to allow private institutions more leeway in their policies.
I don’t think gay marriage, one way or another, affects the creep of anti-discrimination policy. In my view private businesses shouldn’t be required to hire them but the government should be required to recognize their marriages.
As far as schools go, kids today, unlike when I was a kid in the 1970′s, come from a wide variety of homes (it seems two-parent non-divorced families are a minority). I’d hope children are taught not to denigrate the home life of another child regardless of who the guardian is.
dedalus on April 14, 2009 at 2:19 PM
I’m fairly certain dedalus was joking. McCain has vehemently denied ever having been asked to be Kerry’s VP.
Esthier on April 14, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Hence the smiley emoticon after the sentence.
dedalus on April 14, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Why do straight people?
dedalus on April 14, 2009 at 2:22 PM
You also have Fortune Magazine Republicans. People who are entrepreneurial and dislike government red tape and high taxes. They are likely to vote Republican, but in 2008 may have become doubtful about the GOP as stewards of the economy–based on years of big spending and the September collapse.
dedalus on April 14, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Yeah, like the rest of us.
Esthier on April 14, 2009 at 2:42 PM
I wonder how many people would admit to be economically liberal and socially conservative. Perhaps because I live in an academic area, I never encounter any person who claims to be economically liberal and socially conservative. In fact, more than 70% that I know claim to be economically conservative and socially liberal, and at least half of them are smart enough and well-informed enough to vote that way.
As for your point about the Democrats paying lip service to “traditional marriage”, how much longer do you think they are going to bother? The hard core opposition to gay marriage keeps getting smaller and concentrated in more and more Republican circles.
thuja on April 14, 2009 at 2:57 PM
I disagree. Right now a private adoption agency has a legal right to give married couples preference for placement of children. Do you really believe that if gay marriage becomes law that an agency could legally get away with saying gay married couples go to the bottom of the list for placement of children without inviting a discrimination lawsuit? Are you aware of what happened to Catholic Charities in Boston on the heels of gay marriage recognition in Massachusetts? The church was forced to end it’s adoption program rather than be forced by government to place children in the home of married gay parents. This type of stuff will become widespread once gay marriage is enforced nationwide. Legal terms matter and that’s why gays are not content with the benefits of civil unions. They want the term marriage applied to their unions for the very purpose of protection against “discrimination”.
frank63 on April 14, 2009 at 3:00 PM
An article that appeared in the Washington Post a few days ago, Faith Groups Increasingly Lose Gay Rights Fights, details how the law is being used to force people to approve of homosexuality and associate with homosexuals, at the risk of losing their livelihood if they do not comply:
aengus on April 14, 2009 at 3:01 PM
I have this fear too frank, and I’m gay and support gay marriage. It’s seems that political groups outlast their legitimate goals. I promise to be vocal in my opposition against the gay groups then.
I already put gay rights in perspective. My Gay Jewish group had a Passover Seder, and there was some talk of an upcoming election about judges. Some people were in favor a particular judge because he is good on gay issues. I strongly dissented because the judge is anti-death penalty and otherwise too liberal. I argued that other issues are more important in common pleas judge than their stance on gay rights.
thuja on April 14, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Forgive the digression, but add to that best of all worlds (marriage & abortion), lucky lesbians may also choose to become impregnated and give birth. No matter that there is no father in the childs life. After all fathers (or mothers in the case of homosexual male partners with children) are superfluous are they? One has the right to plan ones family without a mother or father, correct? Children are fine with either father or mother, right? As long as they are part of a loving family, isnt that the leftist line?
Certainly millions of us grew up in single parent homes and went on to become productive contributors to society. But that wasnt the plan at the outset in most cases Id venture to say. We most likely began life with a mother and father. To deliberately create a single parent home is a vile expression of narcissism.
Lesbians and homosexual men are allowed to create their own version of family, everyone else be damned. The hell with all the adoptable children in this country and the world. The hell with putting resources toward bettering the lives of EXTISTING children. Lesbos biological clock is tick tocking away and must be satisfied regardless of whoever may be harmed.
Back to the topic of gay marriage. Why is the homosexual community committed to changing the traditional definition of marriage? How will it benefit that community? Homosexual unions can be recognized in law without changing the definition of marriage. Homosexuals can have all the legal benefits of traditional marriage by amending laws, no? Without changing the legal definition of marriage.
Meghan McCain and Margaret Hoover to some degree are the female faces of the new Republican party that sees no problem with statism and its inherent perils. They believe themselves to be au currant, hip, new school.
These 2 bimbos want no association with yucky ol stale traditions of the 50+ generations of so-called bigots and racists who dare to believe in that pesky Constituion AS IT IS WRITTEN (AND AMENDABLE), the Holy Bible, traditional family structure.
kooziegirl on April 14, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Maybe that’s just where you live, because more of the people I know, are practically socialists, and I’m in Texas. Most of them think wealth inequality is something the government can and should control.
But what do you mean by “vote that way”? Who does a socially liberal economically conservative person vote for? Bob Barr?
So you say, and yet without Democrat support, Prop 8 would have failed.
As to your question, I’ve admitted this is likely to change. I just don’t see it happening before the next election.
Esthier on April 14, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Glad to hear that. It’s hard for many people to get past certain issues, especially ones that are important to them.
Esthier on April 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Sorry for the invective, but McCain is a dumb cow. I´m not keen on gay marriage, but I could make a better argument in favor of it than this airhead.
el gordo on April 14, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Fair enough, I didn’t get the joke. :)
Dollayo on April 14, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Let the People decide.
I’m pretty sure that the average American doesn’t depend on the MSM and George Soros’ money to brainwash them on this or the immigration issue…these are gut, common sense issues that people either accept or reject despite propaganda.
It’s like the Confederate Flag issue at Southern state capitols…put it on the ballot.
The only caveat is that propositions on ballots generally have euphemistic titles that lead people to think they’re actually voting for something else.
Dr. ZhivBlago on April 14, 2009 at 3:43 PM
I agree to some extent. Adoption should be about what is best for the child. Criteria should be as objective as possible and if that screens out many, most or all gay couples then so be it. But it seems like the tail wagging the dog to deny marriage to all gays in order to prevent some from adopting, especially since they can adopt in many places already.
dedalus on April 14, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Can we go for a whole day without a picture of John’s little media ho?
clnurnberg on April 14, 2009 at 4:48 PM
My concern isn’t so much about preventing gay adoption itself. It’s about preventing the government from trampling on the rights of adoption agencies. The largest adoption agency in Boston was forced to close it’s doors due to government rule on gay marriage. How many adoptions were either prevented or delayed because of that? Too bad for those unadopted kids…I guess it’s more important now that gay people have their unions affirmed by government than we do what’s best for our children.
It seems you might be willing to concede it’s preferable for children to be raised by straight married couples, but I’m afraid government will never concede to that once it decides gay marriage is the rule for all. I sense that you think somehow government can be neutral on this matter and just let everyone “live and let live”. That’s just not possible I’m afraid. Government is too big and intrusive to be neutral here. It will either outlaw gay marriage itself or it will outlaw any oppostion to it. We are heading toward the latter.
frank63 on April 14, 2009 at 4:48 PM
I just wish she could sound like how she writes. She still sounds too valley girl for me to take seriously. Her argument is valid and I agree, but I wish someone else was making it, someone more articulate.
zembla on April 14, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Isn’t that what she’s suggesting, too, zembia?
Someone needs to step out and offer a different version of the GOP on morality issues.
AnninCA on April 14, 2009 at 5:20 PM
I did not “rail,” nor was I “trying to get a rise out of someone.” You don’t know me, so stop misrepresenting my motivations. I made legitimate criticisms of Christianity as a religion and a faith, which is more than I can say for the people here who have attacked homosexuality qua homosexuality as something akin to necrophilia, polygamy, pedophilia, etc. I’m all for the equal mockery of silly ideas, so I’m hardly being a hypocrite here — homosexuality is in no way inherently idiotic, but religion is demonstrably so. If it is somehow a hate crime for me to say this, so be it.
And I am not claiming to be offended “for” anyone. I defend no one but myself, and nothing but principle. (If I were going to be “offended” at all, I would be so on my own behalf, considering that I myself am homosexual; and since I am also an atheist, I hardly see how I’m “insulting” myself by taking religious arguments against same-sex marriage to task. When you assume, Esthier, you really only make an ass out of you.) One of my principles is intellectual honesty, i.e. not faking reality to preserve antiquated delusional beliefs and traditions for their own sakes. So I am not contradicting myself by attacking Christianity; in fact, I am being wholly consistent. Try again.
breek on April 14, 2009 at 6:17 PM
Why? Does she want to marry Amy Winehouse?
MaiDee on April 14, 2009 at 7:00 PM
Why does a solution in which some states have same-sex marriage and others prohibit hold such appeal? Is it because those in favor assume their state will discriminate againt those who want same-sex unions? It sounds like a dodge based on some nebulous understanding of Federalism. What it *is*, of course, is bigotry plain and simple.
What happens when a same-sex married couple from Vermont moves to Georgia? Are they suddenly not-married? To suggest such a thing is ludicrous. It’s also a slam-dunk victory in the US Supreme Court for same-sex unions.
This is a Federal issue. How else can marriage protections carry over between states? It’s like ye olde slavery in the 19th century. Once an escaped slave got to the North, he or she was still an escaped slave. Until some states passed laws outlawing slavery. So when a slave entered their state, he or she was no longer a slave, but free. Eventually slavery was completely outlawed in the whole US, but of course that took a war to come about.
Same-sex marriage is a done-deal. It’s only a matter of time because some state will make it legal and keep it legal. Then other states will follow, and eventually the SCOTUS will rule it as protected by the Constitution. Thus it will be the law of the land.
What I don’t understand is why those who seek to keep marriage rights segregated don’t just come out and say they are bigots. Actually, maybe I do understand, as being a bigot means one is in a minority and those who fight to keep marriage law unequal think they are in a majority.
To address what happened in Califonia re: Prop 8, it was a combination of Mormon and other big money advertising along with the black vote which gave us the phenomenon of Obama winning the electoral college vote as well as Prop 8 barely passing. The advertising skillfully played to people’s fears- the ludicrous notion that same-sex marriage would diminish different-sex marriage and of course the instinctual distrust of homosexuals. They’re unclean, lascivious, prmiscuous devils don’t you know? Can’t have those people getting married. It would be the end of civilization as we know it.
Actually, the cell phone changed life in more ways than same-sex marriage will.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on April 14, 2009 at 7:14 PM
When is this ***** going to OD on Donnettes?
americaslaststand on April 14, 2009 at 7:15 PM
The Declaration grants NO RIGHTS — those rights come from the Creator. The simplest of concepts is lost on the youth of today — which is why they expect the government to fix it all (as does Meghan’s daddy BTW).
LifeTrek on April 14, 2009 at 7:24 PM
Your “Creator” is nature; the Founders were heavily influenced by John Locke (practically plagiarizing him at times), who believed in natural, not magical, rights. To justify a person’s rights by saying that his imaginary friend lent them to him, is hardly a valid argument.
breek on April 14, 2009 at 7:28 PM
In other words, she wants the GOP to become Democrats! Why does anyone read this woman’s column? She’s as irrelevant as her father now is! Tomorrow, you will begin to see the future and these pseudo conservatives will either join in or be run over!
CrusaderPatriot dot com
CrusaderPatriot on April 14, 2009 at 8:02 PM
Allah =
Is this tthe first time you’ve been in love? Be careful. She’s twice the woman Sarah Palin is; maybe three times.
bw222 on April 14, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Further it took several years of war following the Declaration for the rights to have a chance. The war could have easily gone the other way and the signers of the Declaration likely hung.
dedalus on April 14, 2009 at 8:09 PM
She lives in NYC where elected Republicans are liberal and socially conservative Republicans don’t hold office.
dedalus on April 14, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Being tolerant on social issues doesnt not equal being Democratic light…It’s called being accepting and open minded. Something the GOP needs to be in order to attract new voters.
Plenty of people agree with the Republican positions on foreign policy, taxes, spending, school choice, etc…But the negative attitude, and social litmus tests turn people off.
therightwinger on April 14, 2009 at 9:00 PM
That’s not what Locke believed at all. He believed that God, as Author and Creator and ultimate Moral Judge, a self-evident fact (read book II of Human Understandingagain). You need to put that into the mix of his “natural” rights. Anything else is a ridiculous equivocation.
This is why our founders held “these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”
Where do you get that it is “self-evident” that nature created us “equal”? Is that how Evolution works, everybody is “created equal”? Without competitive advantages?
What does Nature give us “unalienably”? Nature has the advantage over God in the Problem of Evil, as it is not ever attributed with promising us anything. God stands condemned for having promised us better in the PoE, but not Nature. And even so, God stands condemned for the very same calamities we accept from Nature.
Nature cannot be the guarantor of anything, inalienable or not. Thus we have two “observable” rights that fall by the wayside when attributed to your “Creator”.
So, you argue Locke diametrically out of context, simply because he says words you can bend your way, and to top that off when examined by your attributed creator we find that equality and unalienable things vanish. It seems to me that Locke wasn’t right at all. Neither about God being self-evident, nor unalienable rights being evident from Nature.
Yes, you can settle the question for everybody…. sure. Just alert me when you do it with some coherency?
Axeman on April 14, 2009 at 10:04 PM
so you’re not for polygamy? if not, you’re a BIGOT!!
you’re against pedophilia? if so you’re a BIGOT
actually you’re just an idiot.
gay ‘marriage’ is not marriage at all….its scum like you that want to end freedom of religion, all for your hellish little fascist gay agenda.
right4life on April 14, 2009 at 10:11 PM
from an atheist? surely you jest! as we’ve seen once they get in power those ‘rights’ are whatever they say they are…since they think they’re god….
right4life on April 14, 2009 at 10:12 PM
actually its people like you that turn me off from the GOP.
right4life on April 14, 2009 at 10:13 PM
believing in the quaint racist eugenicist idea of evolution sure is an antiquated atheist fairy tale.
you atheists think you’re the smartest people in the room…when you prove the bible ….professing to be wise, they have become fools…
right4life on April 14, 2009 at 10:15 PM
Well, of course I jest. And I’m sarcastic, to boot.
I just recently read an essay on Locke which points out that Locke was the chief opponent against Hobbesian view that everything was negotiated out of power, by providing the self-evident God as a buffer between rampant private oppression in Hobbes’ “State of Nature” and Hobbes’ solution of the state ever on the brink of totalitarianism, necessary to reign in the passions of natural man and Hobbes’ determinism.
Axeman on April 14, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Following an Enlightenment philosopher’s views from a strictly religious perspective is absurd. Certainly Locke was a religious man, but he argued from reason, and not from faith. “Natural” rights descend from nature, not from divinity. This is not to say that “nature,” as if a person, “gives” humans rights. Bambi, in other words, is not the originator of rights; but it is reality (i.e. nature), and the requirements it sets upon man, which is the basic foundation of human rights. All of morality is conditional upon one assumption: that man chooses to live on this Earth. If man chooses to live, then he must follow the demands reality sets upon him. And if man is to live in society, then he must set some requirements of his own on his neighbors, namely: that they not kill him; steal from him; or enslave him in some way or another. Any three of those things (or any variant of said three) is antithetical to the sustenance of human life and the pursuit of human happiness.
All I have just written is based on objective fact, and not religious doctrine. This is the heart of the Constitution, regardless of some scattered references to a magical, unproved, and unprovable, “Creator” of the universe.
Your, and the rather ironically named “right4life’s,” understanding of evolution is sadly lacking. Certainly, organisms are born with “competitive advantages,” as you say. But it is a widely agreed upon fact that humans have ceased to “evolve” in the same way as other, lower animals — namely, because of our state of being conscious, conceptual, volitional creatures, which gives us the ability to mold our environments to our desires and needs. The same cannot be said of any other organism, with minor exceptions. Without volition, no rights or code of morals are/is possible — or, indeed, necessary, because instinct would rule every single interaction between organisms, and no form of arbitration (internal or ex) would be needed.
Contrary to what religionists would have the general public believe, you need not, and cannot, justify rights with mysticism. Nor is atheism synonymous with material mysticism, i.e. communism. It is simply libelous and stupid to claim otherwise. (I’m looking at you, right4life.)
Considering the fact that men of faith were the ones to fly a plane into the World Trade Center; that men of faith were the ones to molest little boys, and receive the backing of the Catholic Church; that men of faith have been tearing up Europe for decades now in one form of sectarian violence after another: I think your comment should be re-worded:
FIFY
breek on April 15, 2009 at 12:17 AM
Frankly, I’m not convinced about the absurdity. I am convinced that ignoring the relative meaning of “evident” when Locke views God as “evident” is a massive equivocation on Locke. And that invoking Locke to attribute nature as creator when nature has not evidenced anything Locke or the founders attributes to the to this role, and that somehow it is contingent upon Locke.
It’s also not clear that it is a “strictly religious” perspective, as Locke was writing political and moral philosophy. You may want to regard it as such, but it’s certainly not required, and it doesn’t answer on equivocation.
Man lived long enough in society with slavery. So that is patently false. That changes when it matters not as much that man “lives” within a society but how he lives within a society. However evolution only cares if he propagates his genes before dying. If he does that, he’s a winner, evolution-wise.
I have no idea where you get this. Human-exceptionalism is rather deprecated in modern evolutionary theory. Larry Moran, a Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto, has this to say, “The idea that humans have stopped evolving is ridiculous. It reflects a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.”
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/01/have-humans-stopped-evolving.html
I am at an equal loss as to how you can sum my understanding of evolution by my simple statement a plain fact of evolution. That evolution, as a force of nature, differentially rewards traits.
But in terms of atheistic dogmatism, if the absence of God should be the default assumption, absent any proof, how does it help you that we might have some unkown source of equality through nature. Unless we can clearly identify natures provision for equality, it hardly makes it proof, and absent proof, why wouldn’t a simple acceptance of a lack of “equality” provided by nature be more in line with this “rational” principle?
So if our standard is “we hold these truths to be self-evident” it is not clear that a possible maybe does the same job.
It’s ironic that if tomorrow I couldn’t see a path to God and renounced him, supposedly I would never again have to justify my lack of finding a way to God. Yet if I have sincere doubts about the lack of a natural principle of equality, I usually end up with the suggestion that I haven’t tried hard enough, or there might be some mechanism out there that does it–or otherwise that I am blind for not seeing their path.
However, the general characteristic methodology of atheism suggests that there is no harm in doubting what someone does not consider provable. Thus if that has an application larger than deciding the question of Gods, a mere possibility should require no one to admit that equality is “self-evident” or even that clear.
Axeman on April 15, 2009 at 3:48 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next »