Follow Up to “One Gen X-er”

Follow Up to “One Gen X-er”

After reading the comments generated by my posting yesterday I wanted to follow up and explain a few things.

1-The statement about the Federal Governments “first foray” into marriage. A reader had a good point-the Federal Government’s involvement in marriage did extend into the tax code prior to DOMA-which I had forgotten-but really, who wouldn’t like to forget the tax code?!

2-There were many whose opinion differ from mine who seemed to take my opinion as an attack on their personal stance. A differing opinion is just that, a differing opinion. My post was meant to explain my stance on the issue, which I know is shared by many in my age group. That is a fact, not an attack on any particular belief or belief system.

My opinion is shared by many in the GOP: Claire McCaskill, Dick and Lynn Cheney, John Huntsman, Meg Whitman and many others. Regardless of how you feel about them personally, or as Republicans, they are entitled to express their opinions on the matter. That is the upside, and the downside, of the First Amendment.

Part of living in a Constitutional Republic is being exposed to differing opinions. The strength of our society is shown when we are able to discuss those differing opinions in a respectful manner.

I respect our readers, and my colleagues, right to hold different opinions on marriage equality-I just ask that when that happens that we are able to discuss our differences in a manner that captures the spirit of our founding fathers. Respectfully.


Written by

  • Ron McCormick says:

    Your followup seems rather pointless. We already know we disagree. Nobody has suggested you should not post your opinions or be excommunicated from the ranks of the GOP. Reading the comments I don’t see any major breaches of good manners. The commenters explained the reasons for their disagreement courteously and respectfully. Your followup answers none of those arguments. So what is the point ?
    Do you disagree with the comments that your arguments supporting homosexual marriage also apply to polygamy ?
    Do you disagree with the comments that children are best served when they are raised by their mother and father ?
    What does a piece of paper have to do with love ? Where is the connection between a legally binding contract and a long term commitment based on love ? When you involve government in marriage what you are doing is making it a legal contract. Enforceable in the courts. Is that truly the goal ? You know it is not. So far as legal issues such as inheritance and medical decisions are concerned many of them can already be easily handled under current laws. If more legal rights are needed for equal justice homosexual activists could probably have civil unions tomorrow, in Utah, if that was their real goal. It is not their goal though. What they want is cultural acceptance. They actually do have thia acceptance to a large extent. They believe having their partnership considered the same as marriage under the law will promote that acceptance even further. Are we arguing over the definition of the word marriage ? What is the problem with allowing heterosexuals to retain the word marriage by right of seniority and providing the exact same legal status by another name for homosexuals ? If civil union is not romantic enough call it an espousal. We already have the gender neutral word spouse.
    I would make one exception to the equal rights aspect. Adoption should be restricted to heterosexual couples. For the children’s sake.

  • Ron McCormick says:

    Two comments on your previous post noted the Scandanavian experience with legalizing homosexual unions indicates that it leads to lower marriage rates amongst heterosexuals and an increase in children raised in single parent homes. Do you disagree with the prediction that this would also follow in the USA ? Do you agree, but do not consider it a problem ?
    I am sure all the readers of Victory girls are familiar with current polls indicating rising acceptance of homosexual marriage. Reference Portman and Cheney. Is abandoning principle for family loyalty something admirable ? Sounds more like a Mafia morality to me. Are you truly a loving parent or devoted friend if you will not tell a friend or family member when you think they are mistaken ? Supporting policies you believe will be damaging simply to win elections seems quite pointless. Unless your goal is simply power for it’s own sake. If most Americans under 30 support homosexual marriage what Republicans need to do is educate them, not surrender.

  • alwaysfiredup says:

    Claire McCaskill is not a Republican. I do not think you know much of which you speak. Are you married?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner