Tag Archives: Gay Marriage

Conservative Support For Gay Marriage

This makes me happy:

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — A national group of prominent GOP donors that supports gay marriage is pouring new money into lobbying efforts to get Republican lawmakers to vote to make it legal.

American Unity PAC was formed last year to lend financial support to Republicans who bucked the party’s longstanding opposition to gay marriage. Its founders are launching a new lobbying organization, American Unity Fund, and already have spent more than $250,000 in Minnesota, where the Legislature could vote on the issue as early as next week.

The group has spent $500,000 on lobbying since last month, including efforts in Rhode Island, Delaware, Indiana, West Virginia and Utah.

Billionaire hedge fund manager and Republican donor Paul Singer launched American Unity PAC. The lobbying effort is the next phase as the push for gay marriage spreads to more states, spokesman Jeff Cook-McCormac told The Associated Press.

There Is No End To Political Correctness

Chris Kluwe

For the record, Kluwe and I share the same position on gay marriage.  We both feel that folks of any sexual preference ought to enter into marriage as far as the state is concerned.  Further, Kluwe and I advocate our positions in social media; me on Facebook, this blog and sometimes Twitter.  Kluwe too.

Our primary difference, aside form the fact that his influence is significantly higher than mine, is that he is engaged in a profession that has a fantastically low career life-span and one that is over the top performance based.  To further tip the scales in my favor, my company faces no arbitrary salary cap or limit to “active employees”.

This week, Chris Kluwe was released from the Minnesota Vikings.  And the PC world is going nuts, including the governor of Minnesota:

ST. PAUL, Minn. – Gov. Mark Dayton thinks sports teams, like politicians, should be honest about decisions that are being made.

“Yeah, I don’t feel good about it,” said Dayton when asked about the Minnesota Vikings decision to release outspoken punter Chris Kluwe on Monday.

“I’m not in a position to evaluate the relative punting abilities, but it seems to me the general manager said, right after the draft, they were going to have competition,” Dayton recalled. “Well, they bring the one guy in, he kicks for a weekend and that’s competition?”


The governor feels the need to weigh in on the personal moves of a professional sports team.  I can’t imagine many things less concerning to a governor than that.  However, in true liberal form, he makes his point and then “covers himself” at the same time:

“That’s their decision to make,” Dayton concluded. “They don’t give political advice. I don’t give them coaching advice.”

Yeah, perhaps you should have taken your own advice before you opened your mouth.

Another North Carolina Law On Marriage


The republican dominated legislature here in Raleigh are submitting legislation that speaks to marriage.  However, unlike the vast majority of recent such bills, this one has nothing to do with gay marriage or civil unions.

It has to do with divorce:

Raleigh, N.C. — State lawmakers are considering making divorces harder to get in North Carolina.

Senate Bill 518, dubbed the Healthy Marriage Act, would double the one-year waiting period before a divorce could be granted and would require husband and wife to receive conflict resolution counseling, as well as counseling if they have children. Supporters said they believe the restrictions will help cut the state’s divorce rate.

Now, I don’t think that this action in any way excuses the liberty restricting legislation that has passed regarding gay marriage, but it is interesting to see republicans acting on oft cited criticisms of gay marriage opposition laws.  Namely, divorce of straight couples.

And, like laws restricting the rights of our gay friends, families and citizens, this law suffers the same faults.   Marriage, in the eyes of the state, should be a contractual matter.  And if two people want to enter into such an arrangement, they should be able to.  And, in similar logic, if they want to end said relationship, they ought to be able to do that as well.

Unless, of course, you buy into the liberal version of  the “collective” and reject the notion of “private” relationships.  In which case, if the community feels that marriages are better for society, well, then, perhaps divorce should just be outlawed completely.

Gay Marriage And States Rights

Gay Marriage

Watching the story surrounding the arguments before the Supreme Court is fascinating.  I love hearing the back and forth not only among the partisans but the “experts” as well.

Some thoughts.

I love President Obama being called out:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and some of the other more conservative justices expressed irritation that the case was before them at all and said President Obama’s stance – to enforce the law but not defend it – contradicted itself.

“I don’t see why he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions” and not enforce the law if he thinks it is unconstitutional, the chief justice said.

This goes to the decision by the President that the law was unconstitutional and that his Justice Department wouldn’t defend the law in court.  However, Obama is still enforcing the law and when the law was struck down by a lower court, Obama appealed it to the Supreme Court.

 Then, I never would have thought I’d see the day when a liberal Justice would appeal to the concept of state’s rights:

“It’s not as though there’s this little federal sphere … you’d be really diminishing what the state has said is marriage,” Ginsburg said.

I think that if Ginsburg rules DOMA unconstitutional because of state’s rights, the left is going to have a hard time fighting state efforts to ban gay marriage.

As for me, I think that gay marriage is protected federally in the same way that interracial marriage is protected federally.

North Carolina – Gay Marriage

Gay Rights

Marriage.  I think the word has two different meanings.  One speaks to the personal and spiritual belief in the institution.  The other is nothing more than a contract between two individuals as recognized by the state.

Independent of one’s view of the spiritual meaning of the act of marriage, it is clear to me that the institution as recognized by the sate should view the union only as a contract; independent of religion or sex.

To that end, a church in North Carolina, after seeing the state vote in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage by 61% of the vote, has decided that it will no longer perform marriage services for anyone until gay marriage is recognized by the state of North Carolina.

John Hinton/Winston-Salem Journal

Green Street United Methodist Church in Winston-Salem says it won’t conduct marriages for heterosexual couples until United Methodist pastors are allowed to officiate at marriages for same-sex couples.

The church’s 18-member leadership council is asking pastors to conduct relationship blessings rather than marriage ceremonies in the sanctuary until the United Methodist Church changes its policies, according to a statement by Equality NC, a statewide organization working to secure equal rights and justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender residents.

And the church isn’t just saying that they view the state recognize same sex marriages as legitimate contracts, rather they are going a step further:

In a statement on its website, church officials declared that committed same-sex relationships are “no less sacred” as heterosexual unions.

Good for them!

Personal Conviction

Rob Portman

At then end of the day, in today’s political atmosphere we’ve gotta take what we can get.  And, when the taking is the right thing from the get go, perhaps even the better.  But it would have been nice if we could have come to this conclusion without having to experience what love means first had:

CINCINNATI –  Republican U.S. Sen. Rob Portman said Thursday that he now supports gay marriage because one of his sons is gay.

Ohio’s junior senator made the disclosure during an interview in Washington, The Cincinnati Enquirer reported.

“It’s a change of heart from the position of a father,” he told three reporters during the 45-minute session in his office. “I think we should be allowing gay couples the joy and stability of marriage.”

I’m not so sure that this signals a tipping point in the GOP, after all, Cheney supports gay marriage, but I could be wrong; this could be the beginning of the thaw.

If only Mr. Portman could have arrived at this conclusion under different circumstances.

This Is What Rand Paul Means: Chic-fil-A

Preceding his election to the senate, Rand Paul got himself into some hot water for his take on parts of the Civil Rights legislation.  I’m paraphrasing, but what he basically said was that “It shouldn’t be illegal for people to be ignorant.”

Private citizens should be allowed to associate with who ever they choose.  While he emphasized that he found discrimination horrible, he claimed that society would deal with them appropriately.

I think that this is a perfect example of what he meant:

BOSTON –  The mayor of Boston is vowing to block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in the city after the company’s president spoke out publicly against gay marriage.

Mayor Thomas Menino told the Boston Herald on Thursday that he doesn’t want a business in the city “that discriminates against a population.”

Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy told the Baptist Press this week that his privately owned company is “guilty as charged” in support of what he called the biblical definition of the family.

The fast-food chicken sandwich chain later said that it strives to “treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.”

Atlanta-based Chick-fil-A has more than 1,600 stores nationwide but just two in Massachusetts, both located in suburban malls.



Amendment One: Role Of The State

I was thinking about the whole debate and then the vote on North Carolina’s gay marriage amendment today.  One of the most interesting realizations was the number of liberals who voted with me today.

Think about it.  I’ve been advocating Liberty, real individual Liberty free of state coercion, for years now.  I’m as for two gay men getting married as I am for the owner of a bar refusing to serve those two gay men.  I’m as for the right to open a barber shop without a barber’s license as I am for allowing people to suffer the consequences of not obtaining health insurance.

Quite simply, I have a long standing history of advocating for the Liberty of the individual.  The Left most certainly does NOT.

The left clearly advocates for the state to intervene to feed people.

The left clearly advocates for the state to house people, to send people to college, to provide medical care and retirement.

The left is ALL about the state controlling people’s lives and restricting individual Liberty until the Statue of Liberty herself pukes.  The idea of Liberty to the Leftist is foreign and on that is despised and feared.

Why is it then, that now, in this debate, the Leftist resonates with the Libertarian?


Gay Marriage In NC: Amendment One


Sadly I am afraid that Amendment 1 will pass in North Carolina.  This is the amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage between one man and one woman to be the only recognized union in the state.  I’m distressed by this outcome.  I’m distressed that a segment of the population of my state would look to restrict the liberty of another segment.

I get the arguments.  I understand that Christians may feel that homosexuality is a sin.  I get that people think the point of marriage is to generate children.  I get all that.  But even if it’s true, even if being gay is a sin, that isn’t the litmus we use to pass legislation.

I am VERY clear that taking the Lord’s name in vain is a sin.  Yet none of us would think to legislate that into law.  Again, I am sure that failing to keep the sabbath holy is a sin, yet again, we wouldn’t dream of codifying it.

The fact that a thing is, or MAY be a sin, simply isn’t reason enough to erect state laws.

With that said, in my disappointment in my state, I find the process fascinating.  There are things that a state can do that the federal government can’t.  And regulating marriage is one of those things.  A state may decide that the age of consent is 16, or 17 or 18.  That state may allow exceptions with parental consent.

Some states require blood tests.  Test to determine if the betrothed carry infectious disease.  Or are related.  States get to regulate marriage.  And though I don’t agree with that regulation, it would seem that the proponents of the amendment followed the process.  They petitioned the government.  That government listened and struck an amendment that made its way to the ballot.  And, if the polling is right, will pass.

States have the right to regulate things in a way and manner that the federal government does not.

And here is where I’m conflicted.  I certainly hope that the courts take this up and rule that the amendment isn’t valid.  We simply can’t stipulate advantage for one group of people over another.  On the other hand, the people of the State of North Carolina have spoken.  Perhaps we are obligated to live with the unfortunate consequences.

If only we had done the right thing and voted this thing down.

North Carolina And Gay Marriage

Here in North Carolina, sadly, we have a fight brewing.  On the upcoming ballot is a constitutional amendment that would make gay marriage and all forms of civil unions unconstitutional.

I happen to be a big “states rights” kinda guy so I don’t have as much a problem with this initiative being on the ballot as I do that there are that many people who want it on the ballot.  Marriage, from the perspective of the state, is nothing more than a legally binding contract between two consenting and unrelated adults.  Nothing more and nothing less.

Continue reading