Why is gay marriage even a national issue? Marriage licenses are issued by the County Government in the States not in DC. As a Reagan Conservative I believe in limited government which means to stay out of my life at the national level for anything other then what the Constitution gives them the authority to do. If not in the Constitution with its amendments, then it belongs as the state level where all social issues including abortion which should have stayed a state issue except for funding. Do not believe my tax dollars should be used for funding ANY abortion. Also believe because partial birth abortion is killing a viable baby it should be outlawed nationwide because it crosses into what I would consider murder of an innocent child which anyone with the least bit of empathy would want outlawed.
As for gay marriage, I consider that a lawyer's dream because they will have more clients lined up to make them richer. I don't care as it doesn't affect my life. I would care if the Federal or State Government told churches who they should marry. There is a difference between a civil ceremony and one in a Church.
Romney's comments on gay marriage below also go into the psychological harm that could come to children raised by gay parents and goes on to say that all children should be raised by a Father and Mother. He only gave credibility to a single parent whose spouse had died as being worthy. What about single parents through no fault of their own find themselves divorced. The party of no abortion who wants women not to get an abortion but to raise their child is now headed by a man who thinks the child should have a father and a mother only. IOTW, you could say he is attacking the woman who decided to keep her baby as being unworthy to be a single parent. If you don't believe me, here are Romney's own words about gay marriage and raising children:
I hear his words and ask myself what happened to the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan? When did it become the party of hate towards people you don't agree with philosophically? It is hard for me as I have been a Republican since the first time I walked doors as young kid for Republicans in our County. I don't believe in boycotts, I don't believe in banning books in my local library, and I don't believe that the Country revolves around social issues which seems to be the focus of the Republican Party today.
When you have the leaders of Congress dissing candidates who actually believe in limited government as nutcases then there is a real problem. Senator Miniority Leader McConnell, talks about limited government like it is the plague. Frankly I am huge believer in limited government and getting our economic house in order along with a strong military and protecting our borders which seems to be putting me at odds with the Republican Party of the Northeast Liberals who seem to have combined with the social conservatives which makes a strange alliance.
Read this Memo that was circulated by a 2004 Bush campaign pollster. It sums up a lot of what many of us believe. Republicans now have a Massachusetts liberal running who is liberal on most issues but gay marriage. You need to remember that gays are only welcome in the Mormon Church if they are not in a gay relationship.
11 May 2012 10:39 PM
Below is a remarkable document. It's a memo circulated by Jan van Lohuizen, a highly respected Republican pollster, (he polled for George W. Bush in 2004), to various leading Republican operatives, candidates and insiders. It's on the fast-shifting poll data on marriage equality and gay rights in general, and how that should affect Republican policy and language. And the pollster's conclusion is clear: if the GOP keeps up its current rhetoric and positions on gays and lesbians, it is in danger of marginalizing itself to irrelevance or worse.
Read the bluntness of this. This is the GOP establishment talking to itself. And the Republican pollster who arguably knows more about the politics of the gay issue than anyone else (how else to explain the Ohio campaign of 2004?) is advising them in no uncertain terms that they need to evolve and fast, if they're not going to damage their brand for an entire generation:
Original Document can be viewed at The Daily Beast
The last paragraph is, to my mind, the most remarkable. It's advising Republican candidates to emphasize the conservative nature of gay marriage, to say how it encourages personal responsibility, commitment, stability and family values. It uses Dick Cheney's formula (which was for a couple of years, the motto of this blog) that "freedom means freedom for everyone." And it uses David Cameron's argument that you can be for gay marriage because you are a conservative.
And the walls came tumbling down.
(More legible transcript of the memo below:)
In view of this week’s news on the same sex marriage issue, here is a summary of recent survey findings on same sex marriage:
1. Support for same sex marriage has been growing and in the last few years support has grown at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down. A review of public polling shows that up to 2009 support for gay marriage increased at a rate of 1% a year. Starting in 2010 the change in the level of support accelerated to 5% a year. The most recent public polling shows supporters of gay marriage outnumber opponents by a margin of roughly 10% (for instance: NBC / WSJ poll in February / March: support 49%, oppose 40%).
2. The increase in support is taking place among all partisan groups. While more Democrats support gay marriage than Republicans, support levels among Republicans are increasing over time. The same is true of age: younger people support same sex marriage more often than older people, but the trends show that all age groups are rethinking their position.
3. Polling conducted among Republicans show that majorities of Republicans and Republican leaning voters support extending basic legal protections to gays and lesbians. These include majority Republican support for:
a. Protecting gays and lesbians against being fired for reasons of sexual orientation
b. Protections against bullying and harassment
c. Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
d. Right to visit partners in hospitals
e. Protecting partners against loss of home in case of severe medical emergencies or death
f. Legal protection in some form for gay couples whether it be same sex marriage or domestic partnership (only 29% of Republicans oppose legal recognition in any form).
Recommendation: A statement reflecting recent developments on this issue along the following lines:
“People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to gay and lesbian couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law. People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits."
Other thoughts / Q&A: Follow up to questions about affirmative action:
“This is not about giving anyone extra protections or privileges, this is about making sure that everyone – regardless of sexual orientation – is provided the same protections against discrimination that you and I enjoy.”
Why public attitudes might be changing:
“As more people have become aware of friends and family members who are gay, attitudes have begun to shift at an accelerated pace. This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.”
So many families have members of their family who are gay. Are they supposed to tell them they don't have the right to commit to someone they want to spend the rest of their life with and have all the benefits that heterosexual couples have when they marry? If they marry and then divorce, there will be under the same rules as heterosexual couples and family practice lawyers will be making more money. If they want to go through that, it is their business not mine. I don't want someone telling me how to live, and I certainly have no right to tell others how to live.“As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.
There will never be a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage IMHO as that is a slippery slope. Are they going to tell people next that you cannot marry someone who is not your same race or a blonde blue haired person has to marry the same? Any amendment added to the Constitution has to be thought out and benefit every American not single out a group. The issue of gay marriage belongs at the state level not the federal level so the idea of a Constitutional amendment is wrong.
Personally don't think alcohol should have been banned in the Constitution either. What did it accomplish? Making a lot of people very rich and making it against the law to make or sell liquor. Finally the Congress wised up and repealed the amendment.
The amendments should be reserved for our free speech, right to assemble, freedom of religion (right to worship as we please), and many other issues that are guaranteed rights to every citizen of this Country.
My two cents on the issue of gay marriage!