Another GOP Senator Comes Out — For Gay Marriage

It is like an avalanche lately; senators from major states around the nation rapidly collapsing around the new narrative: Gays Should Get Married!

Of course, for the democratic senators, this is just coming out from the shadows they’ve been living in for most of their political lives. The Gay Political bloc has never really tried to work with Republicans at any level of government, aside from dog catcher. So if you are a Democratic politician, you have had to pay lip service to gay issues in order to get campaign bucks.

I mean seriously, Claire McCaskill coming out for gay marriage publicly isn’t exactly a profile in courage.

Neither is today’s latest Senator to climb out of the gay marriage closet: Illinois Republican Senator Mark Kirk.  

“When I climbed the Capitol steps in January, I promised myself that I would return to the Senate with an open mind and greater respect for others,” Kirk wrote on his blog.”Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage. Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most. Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back– government has no place in the middle.”

After all, in addition to being the murder capital of the world, Chicago is probably also the third gayest city in the United States, behind San Francisco and Washington, DC.

Since my moniker at my original blog is “GayPatriot,” you would assume I’m a same-sex marriage zealot. I’m not; I’m a freedom zealot. And that includes religious freedom and liberty. But this is not the time to re-re-re-debate gay marriage.

I simply want to ask this question as Sen. Kirk’s announcement works into the national psyche.

Who cares?

Since President Obama’s “evolution” on gay marriage to the position long held by former Vice President Dick Cheney, there has been no substantive attempt at the Federal level to make any change at all with regard to the issue itself.

I don’t see Senators Portman, Kirk & McCaskill forming the “Threesome Gang” to work on Federal marriage laws. So I’m a bit mystified as to why the Political Gays think these announcements are at all substantive.

Real substantive gay relationship discussions happen at the dinner table; and at your family picnics this summer; and at birthday parties for the adults; and at July 4th; and at the next wedding of whomever it might be.

This cultural obsession with how Washington, DC feels about a certain class of citizens is getting downright creepy to me. Unless there is a public policy agenda driving the comings out of all of these United States Senators, well, in the words of Hillary Clinton: “What Difference Does It Make?”

  1. George Rapp

    Hey Bruce, welcome to Ricochet!  I suspect that these heartfelt announcements, patterned on Obama’s primetime, televised, dramatic revelation last year (?) on the subject, are just attempts to grab a bit of spotlight time in the week after SCOTUS considered the issue.  (I’m still chuckling about the mental image of the “Threesome Gang” … :)

    (and out of sense of decorum, I’ll wait until your second or subsequent post to gripe about you not challenging Lindsey Graham in SC … really wanted that to happen.)

  2. Gary The Ex-Donk

    I’m pretty taken aback at just how fast this bandwagon is filling up.  The Dem caucus in the Senate is now down to just 7 who aren’t (yet) formally in favor of SSM.

    Politicians in general (and Democrats in particular) are notorious for being cautious in the face of hot-button issues.  There seems to be almost no fear of a backlash – contrast this to Harry Reid’s inability to get even 40 votes from his own party on the gun legislation.

    Somebody must be doing some serious regression analysis on the polling trends of the last ten years and it’s getting around.

  3. Misthiocracy

    The fact that any Republican members of Congress would endorse gay marriage instead of endorsing the separation of marriage and state upsets me the most.

    It’s as if too many elected Republicans say to themselves, “well, as long as the federal government remains in control of people’s lives, I’ll go along to get along.”

    C’mon elected Republicans, have you completely forgotten the lessons of Ronald Reagan’s first inaugural address?

    “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden.” – Ronald Reagan, January 20, 1981

  4. Nick Stuart

    The difference it will make is when it comes to who will stand up

    • For parents who will object to their children being propagandized, and intimidated into, affirming same sex marriage as identical to heterosexual marriage, being coerced to a lesser or greater degree as required to achieve the objective of their abandoning any moral instruction they receive at home.

    • For churches who will be subject to losing their tax-exempt status if they refuse to let SSM couples use their property to conduct SSM weddings, and subject to discrimination lawsuits.
    • For pastors/rabbis (but not imams, that would be Islamophobic and culturally insensitive, plus the drive to work will get a lot more interesting) who have their credentials to officiate at weddings revoked if they refuse to perform SSM, as well as lose their special sweetheart tax breaks for pastors/rabbis.
    • For counselors who have their credentials revoked if they decline to provide “marriage” counseling to SSM couples.
    • Etc.

    The politicians  jumping out of the closet to support SSM now will be nowhere to be found when it comes to standing up for religious freedom, and for the liberty to act on the dictates of one’s conscience.

  5. Tommy De Seno
    C

    Interesting post.

    The libertarian and liberal position on gay marriage ends up in the same place, but for very different reasons.

    Liberals:  Honor, respect and accept gay marriage.

    Libertarian:  You can get married because it’s none of my business what you do, and I couldn’t care any less about what you do. No acceptance offered or implied.  Just stay out of my business and my religion, too.

    As Hillary said, what difference does it make?

  6. Herbert Woodbery

    The difference is that the liberals think its necessary for the federal government to maintain control over the institution or marriage (presumably in order to destroy it).

    Actually I think most liberals would be ok without government involvement, but say that as long as the government is involved in recognizing marriages, it needs to have a compelling interest in the choices it makes regarding recognition.

  7. Indaba

    Marriage is a critical element to Western success.

    It was not about love. It was about clear property rights and inheritance for children. E.g. The chastity belt was invented by absent husbands who did not have genetic testing to make sure all children in the household were his.

    When I get asked why trillions of aid into Africa has not made a difference, I see it as lack of property law and lack of marriage between two people. Polygamy is not a good way as the wives plot and the children often over throw their father, like Shaka Zulu.

    Gays want stability and clear property laws to apply to their relationships and that is impossible to do on your own. They need the community and the legal structure to give them the same calmness and comfort possible in a relatiionship structure done for centuries.

    Gay marriage has been going on in Canada for years now. Why is it not being data mined to see the impact? I see government taxes as having more of an impact as in Quebec.

    I would stop Hollywood celebrities from getting married before gays. They do far more damage to the institution.

  8. Indaba

    This dominant reasoning that marriage is about love is one of the key reasons why women in north America are triggering so many divorces. If you set up marriage to be about love, expect divorce in about 15 years.

    Thus us the opportunity fir the Right to be explaining the full responsibility and duties of marriage. Those vows about looking after you in sickness and until death meant less need for expensive government services. It was about self reliance.

  9. Fake John Galt

    It seems that it is just as many feared. Homosexuality is contiguous and people are catching it.

  10. iDad
    Herbert Woodbery:

    Actually I think most liberals would be ok without government involvement . . .

    Since when?

  11. iDad
    Tommy De Seno: Interesting post.

    The libertarian and liberal position on gay marriage ends up in the same place, but for very different reasons.

    Liberals:  Honor, respect and accept gay marriage.

    Libertarian:  You can get married because it’s none of my business what you do, and I couldn’t care any less about what you do. No acceptance offered or implied.  Just stay out of my business and my religion, too.

    As Hillary said, what difference does it make? · 5 hours ago

    The difference is that the Libertarian position, as you describe it, assumes a state of affairs that will never exist.

  12. Brian Clendinen

    Senatorial decision making thought process:

    “Look at that poll,  more than 50% of my constituents are for Gay Marriage, so I must show I can relate to them to get their votes and get media attention.”

    News headline:

    “ I am for Gay Marriage to.”

  13. Mothership_Greg

    I personally think the sentence

    Who cares?

    hits the nail on the head.  It’s absolutely creepy to have politicians running around saying things like

    Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back

    Seriously?  What is this, The Notebook?

  14. Misthiocracy
    Tommy De Seno: Interesting post.

    The libertarian and liberal position on gay marriage ends up in the same place, but for very different reasons.

    Liberals:  Honor, respect and accept gay marriage.

    Libertarian:  You can get married because it’s none of my business what you do, and I couldn’t care any less about what you do. No acceptance offered or implied.  Just stay out of my business and my religion, too.

    As Hillary said, what difference does it make? 

    The difference is that the liberals think its necessary for the federal government to maintain control over the institution or marriage (presumably in order to destroy it).  

    The libertarian position posits that the institution of marriage would actually have an opportunity to become stronger if it was freed from government micromanagement (just like American Christianity is stronger than the European variety, thanks to the Establishment Clause).

  15. Nathaniel Wright

    Bruce,

    With one sentence you hit the nail on the head:

    “Real substantive gay relationship discussions happen at the dinner table; and at your family picnics this summer; and at birthday parties for the adults; and at July 4th; and at the next wedding of whomever it might be.”

    Indeed. The need to make every issue a political one has been a disturbing trend of late. Conservatives sometimes want government to “save our children from the depredations of Hollywood,” and Liberals want to control what we eat.

    We need to keep the government out of the social sphere as much as possible.

  16. Joseph Eagar

    Welcome to Ricochet, Bruce!  It sounds like your even more pessimistic on how liberals are handling SSM than I am.  You’re right, of course.