Marriage equality is a conservative cause
But it’s difficult to get people even to consider your reform ideas if they think, with good reason, you don’t like or respect them. Building a winning coalition to tackle the looming fiscal and trust deficits will be impossible if we continue to alienate broad segments of the population. We must be happy warriors who refuse to tolerate those who want Hispanic votes but not Hispanic neighbors. We should applaud states that lead on reforming drug policy. And, consistent with the Republican Party’s origins, we must demand equality under the law for all Americans. …
Marriage is not an issue that people rationalize through the abstract lens of the law; rather it is something understood emotionally through one’s own experience with family, neighbors, and friends. The party of Lincoln should stand with our best tradition of equality and support full civil marriage for all Americans.
This is both the right thing to do and will better allow us to confront the real choice our country is facing: a choice between the Founders’ vision of a limited government that empowers free markets, with a level playing field giving opportunity to all, and a world of crony capitalism and rent-seeking by the most powerful economic interests.
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
There will only be True Marriage Equality when the Federal Government provides spouses for everyone.
Especially for Sandra Fluke.
steebo77 on February 22, 2013 at 10:39 AM
OMG if we assume Lincoln is gay by his sleeping habits does that mean that Mary and Joseph were…
melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 10:39 AM
Dibs on Salma Hayek!
Rebar on February 22, 2013 at 10:40 AM
Why should anyone have any say in who a private business hires? If someone doesn’t like it they can start their own business and hire who they want. The fact that you think the government should dictate hiring practices shows you why the un-Constitutional Civil Rights laws will not go away. You take the most important part of running a business – the people hired to implement the owner’s ideas – and you think that the public should dictate to the owners what they can and can’t do in selecting their employees. Meanwhile, minority-owned businesses get to do anything they want in terms of hiring – which they should be able to, but so should everyone else.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 22, 2013 at 10:40 AM
I have a request also. My husband was frequently deployed with the military. Now his job takes him away two weeks a month. I DEMAND EQUAL SPOUSAL TIME.
The government needs to provide me with a spouse for those two weeks I must do with out or I am being treated unequal- right? Someone has to mow this law; it isn’t mowing itself.
melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 10:45 AM
Of course you would be OK with your husband being accorded equal substitutal spousal benefits, right?
tommyboy on February 22, 2013 at 10:49 AM
This just shows how shallow your thinking is – or you are consciously in agreement with the gay lobby tactic of using “equality” and “gay marriage” as a tool to attack those who don’t explicitly approve of them and their ideals. Were not even talking tolerance but actual acceptance.
The fact that you’d support stripping religious institutions of their tax exempt status clearly reveals this (but apparently the whole host of liberal “non-profits” get to go along merrily pushing the liberal agenda). You can argue that institutions shouldn’t get tax breaks (that there shouldn’t be any tax breaks) but the reason churches get a tax break is because they perform essential functions of a thriving society like caring for the poor and unfortunate. So you’d rather see churches cut back on these efforts as punishment for not supporting the gay agenda.
gwelf on February 22, 2013 at 10:51 AM
Okay now would be the time to bring up the “you’re just a misgynist” “sexist’ pig” “war on women”– so I can deflect that issue right?
melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 10:55 AM
Government’s historic role has been to restrict marriage. Keep rich from marrying poor, Catholic from marrying Protestant, white from marrying black, etc. Since, at least in the USA, government no longer has that role, it really shouldn’t have any role. It certainly shouldn’t go about re-defining marriage, which only begets further discrimination as whoever is left outside the government-set definition of marriage can rightly cry discrimination.
shuzilla on February 22, 2013 at 10:58 AM
OK, I’ll explain. Right now, a gay couple can get married and not go to jail, not be stripped naked and displayed on the courthouse lawn, not be sent to Gitmo.
What they cannot do, legally, is force you and I to ACCEPT their unions. We aren’t required to share in their delusion that they are man and wife or whatever.
That’s fine. As it stands now, we all have freedom of conscience, and of association. Live, and let live. That should be good enough, eh?
Nope. What the gay marriage movement wants is for government to FORCE gay unions upon everyone else; to force their personal beliefs and the acceptance of their perversion of marriage on everybody else, regardless of individual conscious. That means punishing those who refuse, on religious and other personal grounds, to accept gay marriage.
The choice is tolerance or intolerance. And it’s the gay lobby that is intolerant, because it can’t stand my freedom to refuse to accept same-sex marriage.
shuzilla on February 22, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Here’s an article defending marriage.
Capitalist Hog on February 22, 2013 at 11:19 AM
Why exactly did you say “on everything but hiring”? Is there some Constitutionally protected right to a job or to work for a particular employer that I missed? Hiring and firing are one of the key aspects of running a business. The government should have no more say in that then they have in who I invite into my house.
But this is why I could never be elected to public office. If the owner of a private business wants to put up a sign that says “blacks not served here,” I think they should be able to. I think it’s abhorrent. And I would hope no one would patronize them and they would go out of business. But why should any private property owner be told who they must allow on their property?
Shump on February 22, 2013 at 11:47 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2