The Republican Party & the Gay Community Make a Great Pair

Rant 27

gay marriage topperThe GOP did not attract young voters to the polls in 2012. For some reason, young people seem to think that Republicans hate the gays, and the only people voting for Mitt were racist bigots. Or something.

Shhhh! No one tell GOProud they’re not supposed to be Republicans!

Because apparently talking about gay marriage is more important than the looming fiscal cliff or murdered ambassadors in Benghazi. Chris Stevens was gay, by the way, and I’m sure he’d care a heck of a lot more right now about being alive than whether he was in a civil union or a marriage.

The Republican Party is the best party for the gay community to find a home, because it’s the best place for everyone. Our ideals of limited government and personal responsibility are what built America and made it great. Actually, it was the people living here and working hard that made it great, and now the government is mucking everything up.

Too many rules and regulations with loopholes for all of the president’s friends is stifling business. This is a recovery? If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. 

Let’s take our core conservative principle of freedom from government intrusion and apply it to gay marriage. A person can absolutely be personally against gay marriage for religious (or other) reasons, and still not want the state to regulate it.

While we’re at it, can we legalize civil unions for those poor sister wives too? Who is Uncle Sam to say who can be married and who can’t?

The Republican Party is at a crossroad, and all the head burying in the sand in the world won’t change the fact that for better or worse, the world’s a changing. If we want to win elections, we need to be more inclusive to gays and other minorities, and we can do it without compromising our conservative values.

Former RNC Chairman and openly gay Republican Ken Mehlman summed it up nicely:

Some misperceive the issue of marriage equality as exclusively progressive. Yet what could be more conservative than support for more freedom and less government? And what freedom is more basic than the right to marry the person you love? Smaller, less intrusive government surely includes an individual deciding whom to marry. Allowing civil marriage for same-sex couples will cultivate community stability, encourage fidelity and commitment, and foster family values.

Honestly? I’m just at the point where I don’t care who marries whom, so long as we can actually start cutting some spending and make a dent on the sixteen trillion dollar credit card bill the United States owes. If we go over the fiscal cliff, it won’t matter if gay marriage is legal or not. They’re called priorities, people. Let’s get them straight.


Image via laverrue/Flickr

2012 election, barack obama, discrimination, law, marriage equality


To add a comment, please log in with

Use Your CafeMom Profile

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Comment As a Guest

Guest comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.

nonmember avatar Cass

On behalf of the socially liberal fiscal conservatives, it's about damn time. If republicans would step back and stop trying to legislate marriage and uteri (uteruses?), I'd vote for them every time. Mostly because that makes them libertarian. But seriously- people do care about Benghazi and the fiscal cliff. Only problem is, your party continues to comment on rape, abortion, and other hot button topics very few young people care about. We just can't stand supporting the fiscal policies we agree with when it also means we're supporting hate and inequality. If the republicans want to try and take credit for what the libertarians have known all along, fine. As long as it leads to the betterment of the country.

PonyC... PonyChaser

You won't find an argument from me. I've said similar things for years. I firmly believe that BOTH parties have become WAY too beholden to the lunatics of the far opposite ends of the spectrum. MOST Republican/Conservatives don't want everyone to be pigeonholed into the "uber-Christian" point of view that considers gay marriage not only wrong but an absolute abomination that will end you up rotting in hell.

By the same token, MOST Liberals/Democrats don't want the country to turn into a Communist Dictatorship.

Unfortunately, the "leaders" of both parties are absolute sellout pantywaists and can't say no to the loud, screechy voices that scream at them and push them to the fringes. So here we are.

I heard an interview with someone today, and i wish to God I could remember who it was, because he said that we (as citizens) would be absolutely amazed at how many cuts could be made in spending - he was saying billions - without touching a single "popular" entitlement. Things like crack-monkey studies and other idiotic wastes of money. It made me sick to hear just how much could be cut, and then that nobody would actually cut anything for fear of being smeared by the other side.

Our whole government is pathetic.

tuffy... tuffymama

DH works with two gay republicans and a gay, black libertarian, and this in an historically democratic stronghold. My BFF is a gay, conservative in the top of his field, and my SIL is a libertarian lesbian. Most people, Dems especially, would be surprised to learn just how many gay conservatives there are. It is less dangerous in some circles to come out as gay than to admit being a conservative. Outspoken SIL, for instance, was passed up for promotion twice because she refused to toe the "party" line. That's just how it is now.

As far as marriage goes, I think MARRIAGE is a spiritual covenant anyway, and is no concern of the government beyond protecting citizens from arranged marriages against their will, child brides, etc. My SIL married her longtime girlfriend a few months ago, and it was a religious ceremony. They've been living together as any married couples do for years. They pooled their resources, had medical power of attorney for each other, and owned property together well before they had a marriage. They were alrwsdy recognized as a couple for years and years before the marriage. They just decided eventually to have it recognized in their church.

tuffy... tuffymama

*BFF is a gay, Christian conservative that should have said

nonmember avatar Cass

Whoops, brain breakdown. That shouldn't be saying that young people don't care about those hot-button topics. As this election showed, they do. The large majority of them, however, don't appreciate Republicans trying to redefine rape. They don't appreciate having committees on birth control that only involve male religious leaders. They don't appreciate people blowing them off when they try to have a serious discussion about gay marriage or drug legalization. I do not agree with Obama's fiscal policies. However, I cannot bring myself to vote for a party that consistently marginalizes or degrades women, gays, atheists, Muslims, Latinos, African Americans, or anybody, for that matter. If Republicans want to give up the bible-thumping, "defending the constitution" bs, then let me be the first to say awesome. However, it's going to take a lot more than a last-ditch effort to save the party for me to accept the Republican politicians as anything other than a bunch of stubborn, intolerant bigots with superior ideas on fiscal policy.

DebaLa DebaLa

"They’re called priorities, people. Let’s get them straight."

You mean "gayly forward."

PonyC... PonyChaser

Cass, perhaps you should get to know some REAL republicans and stop throwing around the stereotypes that the press so eagerly paints for the general public. Those "redefining rape" idiots? An absolute MINORITY in the party. But their words were inflammatory, especially when the gasoline of the press was added. Biden and others made equally ignorant and inflammatory remarks, but they were either wholly ignored, or the press nearly broke a leg tripping over themselves to defend/cover them up.

It's like i said in my first statement. Most of the country is moderate and level-headed, willing to give and take a little. It's the freak fringes that run the country, and it's ripping us apart. Unfortunately, the press is gleefully participating.

Cel7777 Cel7777

Ponychaser, again, I think I love you. Will you enter into a Republican-approved, gay civil marriage with me? ;-)

Cel7777 Cel7777

"A person can absolutely be personally against gay marriage for religious (or other) reasons, and still not want the state to regulate it"---absolutely. People can be, and often are, morally opposed to things and don't feel the need to legislate against them. For instance, I presume a large percentage of the US believes infidelity is wrong, however no one is fighting to make it a criminal offense.

I'm curious to see if the Republican party as a whole embraces this concept though...even though it makes perfect sense, it would probably really ruffle the feathers of their Christian Conservative base.

nonmember avatar Cass

Those "freak fringes" are why Republicans are faring so badly among youth. Fact is, Romney said about 400 offensive things that made me (a former Romney supporter) facepalm and accept his loss months before election day. If the Republican party really wants to change, wonderful. However, that starts with ending the support of anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-minority "idiots". Todd Akin lost his support in a move that nearly brought tears to my eyes (Hallelujah, FINALLY). However, how come Boehner is allowed to form a committee composed of entirely white men without anybody in their party raising an eyebrow? Those men may have been the best for the job. However, the republican party does not have a fantastic history of treating women as equally capable. You're completely correct in saying that the majority of Republicans (including, some might say, myself) are mostly moderate and reasonable. However, until Republicans stop treating those loud-mouthed outliers as the equivalent of a crazy old uncle, people will continue to paint them as bigoted and racist. I'd say that argument is at least somewhat valid. To not oppose a cause is to support it, at least somewhat.

1-10 of 27 comments 123 Last