Maura Flynn makes The Republican Case for Gay Marriage. She writes:
As a nation we're at a crossroads, no question. Our banking industry scrambles to escape quasi-nationalization, our auto industry is in the process of being nationalized, and we have instituted, of all things, a Car Czar (note: it took Russia roughly 300 years to stack up so many czars). If that isn't bad enough, nationalized health care is on the table again.
So as the Republic devolves and those with the means contemplate hightailing it to the Caymans, it's probably time to ask ourselves what it is to be "conservative."
One need only read the comments on this site to know that there are two fundamental schools of thought here. Some of us believe that to be conservative is to defend freedom, preserve individual liberty, and keep government small. Others believe that being conservative is about electing a government that will defend and enforce "traditional" values.
And she adds:
The Republican Party has made a huge mistake in advocating a kind of Cafeteria Constitutionalism. (I'll take some guns, no helmet laws, please, a free market, and...yuck, hold the gay marriage!). One can't legitimately invoke the Constitution to oppose federally mandated sex education, and then use the federal government to impose school prayer. Leave that fair-weather-federalism to the Left.
This is the type of argument a movement seeking legal equality for gay people ought to be making. But, of course, it's something the LGBT Democratic Party fundraisers at the Human Rights Campaign have decided isn't worth any effort.
More. Of course, maybe HRC should focus first on defending gay legal equality to the Great Liberal President to whom they pledged unconditional LBGT support during the election. From AMERICAblog: Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget. Invokes incest and marrying children.
Not working to build up support on the right is what has allowed the left to walk all over us. Eggs and baskets, boys and girls. Eggs and baskets.
More. LGBT myopia: We don't need Dick Cheney's support. LGBT progressives are confused: how would achieving marriage equality with Republican support serve the Democratic Party?
3 Comments for “Making the Case (to the Right)”
posted by Jorge on
One has to be pretty immersed in conservative and Republican ideology to even think of making that kind of argument.
Most gay rights activism is based on more progressive assumptions.
posted by DavA on
This Democrat is tired of the lies that bind us. No longer will I fall for the smiling, lying face that says he supports us then once elected does everything in his power to ignore or castigate us. Wake up Queers Obama is Bill Clinton redux. I am willing to listen to a Republican who fully supports repeal of DOMA or DADT and any other gay friendly legislation. I am no longer bound to one party. I am just waiting on that elusive, brave Republican to step up.
posted by Catherine on
I am glad that the former VP has changed his views or at least being more open about being pro-gay rights. Great! Wow! Kisses!
Now what? Beyond making a few polite verbal comments during the presidential debates, he was pretty much politically useless while being the actual VP.
I read his daughter book. She comes off as a passionate, smart and decent person. Yet, I could not be help laugh at some of her political arguments, especially explaining why she stuck with the administration.
The GOP is at a cross roads. Republicans have a golden opportunity to actually put forth some good, candidates who do not simply do whatever the religious right tells them to.
Will it happen? Maybe, maybe not. I have some gay Republican friends of mine, and they tend to — like people in generally — prefer to complain and do nothing.
None of them have any interest in running for public office, especially federal.