Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Conservatives for gay marrige
That's Just Not Right! > KVL's Smart Arses > Debates & Discussions > American Politics
The Gunslinger
This is really refreshing to see.

QUOTE


Gay Marriage's Right-Wing Brigade
by The Daily Beast


George W. Bush's former solicitor general, Theodore Olson, is leading the charge to reverse Proposition 8 in California today. The Daily Beast finds other right-wingers who refuse to toe the gay-marriage party line.

The national debate over gay marriage returns to San Francisco today, where six years ago San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom first handed out marriage licenses to gay couples at City Hall. Now activists are challenging California's ban on same-sex marriage, Proposition 8, in a trial that might set the groundwork for the issue to reach the Supreme Court. Who's leading the same-sex marriage charge? Theodore Olson, President George W. Bush's former solicitor general, and a lifelong Republican who also served under Ronald Reagan.

In a political environment where President Obama has shied away from endorsing gay marriage as if it were kryptonite, Olson makes a cogent argument in Newsweek for why die-hard conservatives should "celebrate" gay marriage, arguing that "same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize." Olson isn't the only conservative to back gay marriage. From Dick Cheney and Steve Schmidt to Ron Paul and The Daily Beast's own Meghan McCain, our list of Republican's who refuse to toe the party line.

Charles Dharapak / AP Photo Ted Olson
Bush's old solicitor general is teaming up with his old rival in Bush v. Gore, David Boies, to persuade a federal court that California's Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. He lays out his reasons in The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage, where he criticizes his fellow conservatives' "knee-jerk hostility" to same-sex marriage. "The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as equals in our society; any status short of that is inferior, unjust, and unconstitutional," he writes. "The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it." Those who aren't convinced can tune into the trial on YouTube, where it is being broadcast, much to the dismay of the anti-gay marriage camp, which is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the show.

Kevin Wolf / AP Photo Dick Cheney
In a shock to many familiar with the former vice-president's combative defense of many conservative positions, Dick Cheney said last summer that he favored allowing gays and lesbians to marry "on a state-by-state basis." Cheney told the National Press Club that, "people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish." One can't help but wonder if his beliefs stem, at least in part, from being a proud grandpa. Cheney's daughter Mary is a lesbian who has been in a relationship with her partner since 1992, gave birth to a son in 2007, and is pregnant with another child now. Although she's tried to stay out of the political spotlight, Mary has occasionally been made a political football, as when John Edwards mentioned her in the vice-presidential debate in 2004.

Mark Terrell / AP Photo Ron Paul
Rep. Ron Paul, former presidential candidate and America's best-known libertarian, has said he would have voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which says states don't have to recognize gay marriages. "In an ideal world," Paul writes, "state governments enforce marriage contracts and settle divorces, but otherwise stay out of marriage." He has proposed statutorily preventing federal courts from dealing with marriage issues. "I don't see rights as gay rights, women's rights, minority rights," Paul has said. "I see only one kind of right: the individual."





William B. Plowman / AP Photo David Brooks
Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks is well-known for his light-hearted romps through the suburbs in his books of pop anthropology like Bobos in Paradise. But his 2003 essay calling for conservatives to support gay marriage was very serious. In a culture that values fleeting pleasure over long-term fidelity, Brooks argued, as many people as possible should be encouraged to seek the stability and shared sacrifice of wedded bliss. "The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments," Brooks writes. "It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage."

Meghan McCain
Meghan McCain, Daily Beast columnist and daughter of the former Republican presidential candidate, has drawn the ire of some of her fellow conservatives over her support of same-sex marriage, but she doesn't mind. ("[Y]es, I'm still a Republican. Get used to it," she says.) The Constitution guarantees that all men are equal, McCain argues, and that goes for the right to marry the person you love. McCain urges the GOP to embrace gay rights in order to attract the next generation of voters who don't have the same attitudes about gays as older folks.





Scott J. Ferrell / Getty Images Richard Cizik
Richard Cizik rose to national prominence as the National Association of Evangelicals' vice president for government affairs when he began speaking out on another traditionally liberal issue: the environment. He was on the NPR show Fresh Air to talk about that issue when host Terri Gross asked him if he still opposed gay marriage. "I'm shifting, I have to admit," Cizik responded. "In other words, I would willingly say that I believe in civil unions. I don't officially support redefining marriage from its traditional definition, I don't think." An uproar followed, and after a week of apologizing, Cizik was forced to resign.



Matt Sayles / AP Photo Steve Schmidt
The former chief campaign adviser to John McCain, Steven Schmidt, told the gay newspaper the Washington Blade that, unlike his old boss, he supports gay marriage. "I think that more and more Americans are insistent that, at a minimum, gay couples should be treated with respect and when they see a political party trying to stigmatize a group of people who are hardworking, who play by the rules, who raise decent families, they're troubled by it."







Jin Lee, Bloomberg / Getty Images Christine Todd Whitman
For Christie Whitman, it's all about the separation of church and state. The former New Jersey governor and EPA head wrote last month that state lawmakers are wasting time agonizing over the definition of marriage when they should be focusing on taxes, education, health care, and other problems. Whitman says it would be better if the state merely recognized legal relationships between two consenting adults, and let couples celebrate their relationship in a religious setting however they choose. "I believe this country was founded with the intention of providing, and should continue to protect, our freedom to practice the religion of our choice without the intrusion of the state," she says. "Marriages should take place in a house of worship where the state is left at the door."

Compiled by Elspeth Reeve and Liz Goodwin.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-sto...g-brigade/full/
rick
I've always been of a mindset that Republican politicians don't necessarily vote/support their "preference" on this issue as much as they represent what they see as the voters desire... knowing that to go against the voters on this issue means many, many lost votes.

I also think that of all the people who rallied to BHO during the presidential campaign, this particular groups (the "help us legalize gay unions" peeps) have been given the nastiest of cold shoulders. BHO basically pretends they don't exist. Yes, their are larger things going on, both short-term and long-term, but he has time for a lot of other stuff that I'd consider small beans compared to this issue. My opinion: he has dropped the ball, big time, here.
The Gunslinger
President Obama has dropped the ball on this but I don't think it is as bad as you do. Honestly I have always kind of figured that this was going to be a second term goal of his.

He is trying to get rid of "Don't ask, don't tell" though. Gotta give him that.


I think these right wingers should be applauded (except Cheney) for standing up for what they think is right no matter what their constituents think.
rick
Seems kind of dishonest to run on something and then assume you'll get a second term (with the same democratic strength of the first) to accomplish it.
shirizaki
Republicans have to coax "the base", christians, to win elections. This means imposing chiristian values for their policies, no matter how it goes against the party.

Republicans don't want the government telling capable adults that they can't marry other capable adult sof the same sex, but they have to to win the base.

They want to uphold the constitution and follow in the founding fathers, but have to move towards a theocracy to please the base.

They want free market to actually work, but no one in the poor south can keep a job or goe son welfare because they're trailer trash christians.

If the base didn't exist, the game would be slightly different. I've been hoping for years the base eventually splits into it's own party and elects their officials. I even pray to a cosmic sun god that if he does indeed exists they do this and nominate Palin in the hopes that republicans can dig through their ranks and pluck their own "Obama" with more experience: someone who will "change" shit like busting the legalized monopolies and the inept federal level which has decided to be world police instead of helping states police and nurture the interior.

Alas, we get the vaunted and hyped "Palin v Obama 2012". Go fuck yourself America. Brave New World smells like shit.
Ad Astra
QUOTE(shirizaki @ Jan 11 2010, 09:06 PM) *
Republicans have to coax "the base", christians, to win elections. This means imposing chiristian values for their policies, no matter how it goes against the party.

...

If the base didn't exist, the game would be slightly different. I've been hoping for years the base eventually splits into it's own party and elects their officials. I even pray to a cosmic sun god that if he does indeed exists they do this and nominate Palin in the hopes that republicans can dig through their ranks and pluck their own "Obama" with more experience: someone who will "change" shit like busting the legalized monopolies and the inept federal level which has decided to be world police instead of helping states police and nurture the interior.




You're halfway there already. Depending on what happens in 2010 and 2012 it would not surprise me in the least to see the teabaggers split off permanently from the Republican party to form their own "Conservative/Tea Party." I've been hearing rumbling about it already.

The Tea Party *is* the Republican base, which might ultimately help the Republican Party as they no longer have to sell their souls to appeal to social conservatives. Despite the mewling noises they've made the past couple of decades, the party of Reagan is not necessarily socially conservative. This would, eventually, result in a three party system: the Social Conservative Party (i.e. "Jesus Party"), the Fiscal Conservative Party (i.e. "Centrist Party") and the Democratic Party. Really, I can see a socially moderate, fiscally conservative national party sucking in most of the Libertarians and even a segment of the Blue Dogs from the Democrats, leaving the Jesus Party to fret over the social issues that plague America, and the Democrats to be the leftist alternative. Many of the Blue Dog Democrats are Democrats only because they're socially moderate and don't feel like they can advocate for the back-asswards social thinking coming from the Republican base. (See: Arlin Spector.) It could be good for everyone.

Of course, in the short term such a split would be a boon to Democrats, resulting in a years -- possibly decades -- long era of Democratic Congressional leadership. And, you know, I'm good with that too. But I'm totally serious when I say that a three party system rising from the ashes of the Republican Party could, in the long term, be beneficial to the good of the country as a whole.
rick
thmbup.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.