Comments on: McCain Advisor Announces Support for Marriage

By: Christopher Waldrop

Christopher Waldrop — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:18:57 +0000

While I applaud his overall message, I take exception to this particular comment: “I believe conservatives, more than liberals, insist that rights come with responsibilities.”

This kind of labeling and supposition about what “liberals” believe is unnecessary, especially since both sides could arguably be said to have held positions demanding rights without responsibilities. For instance, conservatives have long argued that the right to own firearms can’t be limited in any way.

It’s nice he’s taking a couple of steps forward, but he seems to be taking a step back by saying “liberals are right for being in favor of same-sex marriage, but for the wrong reason”. Or maybe, seeing how history’s turning, he’s laying the groundwork to claim that conservatives were in favor of same-sex marriage all along and that it was really liberals who opposed it.

By: Regan DuCasse

Regan DuCasse — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 05:21:31 +0000

Well, GEE…why didn’t President Obama say that?
Apparently there are people who can say it, and not spontaneously cumbust.

By: CPT_Doom

CPT_Doom — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:21:55 +0000

IIRC, Schmidt has a gay or lesbian sibling, which is part of the reason for his decision to publicly support equal marriage rights. Once again proving that the more we are open about our lives, the fewer arguments that can work against us.

By: John

John — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:26:16 +0000

Better late than never, I suppose. It would have been nice if our “friends” in the Republican party like Mary Matalin would have said something in 2004 or 2008.

That would describe quite a number of Democrat politicians as well, including our current president. Until recently, most were taking the “I believe marriage is something between a man and a woman but would support civil unions/DPs for gays”. At least they opposed the state amendments for the most part, though not universally and quite a hefty amount of their rank-and-file stood with Republicans in voting for them. Eh, I appreciate Schmidt’s speech and if Republicans like him can muzzle the social cons I’ll sing his praises if it helps.

By: Houndentenor

Houndentenor — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:09:19 +0000

Better late than never, I suppose. It would have been nice if our “friends” in the Republican party like Mary Matalin would have said something in 2004 or 2008.

And as for the definition, Ephilei is right. These sorts of arguments only work if people are completely ignorant of history and other cultures. One only has to read the Bible to discover that marriage was NOT always one man and one woman and in many parts of the world that still isn’t the definition. We have redefined marriage many times over the last few thousand years. We shouldn’t allow people to state things that are demonstrably untrue in the course of this debate.

By: Ephilei

Ephilei — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 00:00:40 +0000

Good for him! The lgbt movement needs more Republicans.

It has always been defined as the legal union of a man and a woman

No, it hasn’t always been 1 a legal union, 2 a man/woman (as in only one), or 3 a man and woman as the definitions of “man” and “woman” vary among cultures depending on how they treat transgender/gender variant people.