The conservative case for gay marriage
Schmidt
WASHINGTON — We haven’t heard much from Steve Schmidt of late. In fact, it seemed like John McCain’s chief strategist went underground after McCain’s loss in the November election.
He popped up today, and his comments may not please some of McCain’s supporters: Schmidt warned fellow Republicans about the dangers of opposing the drive for gay marriage that has been picking up steam across the country.
This month alone, courts or legislative bodies in Iowa, Vermont and the District of Columbia voted to recognize same-sex marriage. Yesterday, New York Gov. David Paterson made an impassioned plea for gay marriage in his state.
Schmidt, speaking in front of Log Cabin Republicans, a gay and lesbian group, asserted that Republicans are fighting a losing demographic battle and must work diligently to open the party.
“Whether it’s with suburban voters, working class voters, college educated voters, Hispanics or left-handed Albanian psychics, the percentage voting Republican has declined,” Schmidt said, quickling adding young voters to that list.
“A party cannot grow if it subtracts while it tries to add,” he said, launching into what he described as “a sound conservative argument” for same sex marriage.
“It has always been defined as the legal union of a man and a woman, and it’s understandable that many Americans are apprehensive about making a definitional change to so profoundly an important institution. But it is a tradition, not a creed, or, at least, not a national creed. It is not how we define ourselves as Americans. And while we shouldn’t carelessly dismiss the importance of enduring traditions, we should understand that traditions do change over time in every society …
“Marriage can be a profoundly gratifying state that strengthens the virtue of individuals and societies, and increases the measure and quality of the happiness we enjoy. It seems to me a terrible inequity that any person should be denied that responsibility, and the emotional enrichment it can provide,” he added.
In a recent interview, Schmidt, a Californian, said that having a lesbian sister influenced his views.
You can read his whole speech here.
Memo to the gay community. If this guy is going to run your campaign, based on what I saw in the last election, I wouldn’t be booking any halls.
The principle that America stands for is freedom. Individual liberty is a fundamental value that our nation was based on, and if it means allowing people of the same sex to marry, then it must be done. Whether gay marriage is un-Christian or biologically unnatural is irrelevant….as Americans we put freedom of the individual first and foremost, and it is only by this standard that we will fulfill our commitment to democracy.
Why do people think we can change the definition of a word on a whim? Also, our country was founded based on judeo-christian values and liberty. Liberty is not about freedom to do waht you want. And since humans are still part of the animal world, are there any other species where their members of the same sex screw? While one may argure people are born that way, we are all are born a certain way, we just choose or choose not to act on our feelings and beliefs.
STS,
Actually there are several documented cases of “gay” animals. Since you say “Liberty is not about freedom to do waht you want,” what exactly does liberty mean? Does liberty mean the temper tamtrums of a regional party with softheaded mouth peices? Does liberty mean conforming to your own definitions of what love is? I have to ask if you were born gay would you be celibate your whole life as to not satisfy those ‘unnatural’ urges?
While I’m not for gay marriage or promoting homosexuality, I also believe strongly that when the government oppresses any group it gives itself the “right” to oppress all groups. When it takes away one person’s rights it takes away the rights of all people. And when it invalidates one article of the Bill or Rights, it empowers itself to invalidate them all. That being said, I care more about defending peoples’ rights than trying to prevent gay marriage.
I am a Republican and a Christian and am not ‘pro gay” however I think its time to take government out of the marriage business and take religion out of the partnership business. Marriage should continue to be sanctified by the Church and a legal union between two consenting adults should continue to be a role of government. I have no problem with two people entering in to a legal and binding agreement that combines assets, liabilities and benefits. As for a marriage, it’s defined in the holy bible as a union between a man and woman in the eyes of God. The two could be and should be considered seperate issues. My marriage is certainly not threatended by legal homosexual partnerships.
Jim, I’m glad I’m not the only one saying what you’re saying. When a Minister/Priest/Rabbi/Shaman is licensed by the state to perform marriages, isn’t that person NOW an agent of the state?
The Republican Party will never accept gay marriage. If they do, they risk becoming very hypocritical. For years the religious right preached gays was an abomanation to god and family values. Now, all of a sudden they want to accept gay marriage for a few votes. What gives here? The Republican party is in disaray.
STS represents the ignorance the gay community must endure everyday.
Too bad the Judeo-Christian system grants marriages for functional illiterates.