Talk to Senator Brubaker. Seems he has a mission to change the Constitution to make sure the gays cannot have the opportunity the rest of us enjoy.

Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Meghan McCain warned a group of gay Republicans Saturday that there was "a war brewing in the Republican Party" – a war between the past and the future.

"Most of the old school Republicans are scared s***less of that future," she told a gathering of the Log Cabin Republicans, a group of gay and lesbian party members.

The 24-year-old daughter of former GOP presidential candidate John McCain pushed back against critics upset over her comments to CNN that she wanted President Obama to succeed, and played down her recent headline-grabbing feuds with conservative commentators Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. "I did not expect my frustration with what I perceive to be overly partisan and divisive Republicans to cause a national incident," she said.

"I feel too many Republicans want to cling to past successes…I think we're seeing a war brewing in the Republican Party," she said. "But it is not between us and Democrats. It is not between us and liberals. It is between the future and the past…

Just my two cents:

I'm a conservative evangelical Christian who just happens to be a Democrat. But I'm not sure I could support "gay marriage".

On the other hand, I believe "civil unions" should be recognized everywhere.

Why?

I can understand why gay couples could be denied a Christian marriage, depending on one's interpretation of the Bible. However, I've personally known a number of gay couples who were far more devoted to each other than a lot of married people that I have known. I used to know a gay woman rather well who was denied even the most basic rights when her partner became seriously ill, an individual who quite literally had no other family. I believe it is totally and completely wrong to deny access to and personal aid from the individual who is closest to you.

Just a thought, where was the gay community during this womans illness...why didn't they step up and help your friend? Doesn't the gay community have compassion???

..the beat goes on..

Just a thought, where was the gay community during this womans illness...why didn't they step up and help your friend? Doesn't the gay community have compassion??? ..the beat goes on..

Let me get this straight Gil, in order to appeal to young voters, the GOP has to accept gay marraige?? Next you'll be telling us in order to appeal to young voters, the Gop will have to
drop its opposition to strict marijuana laws...Oh thats right, you already believe that...there goes the Pied Piper of Lancaster again....

..the beat goes on..

i would think any repub leader with brains would want to appeal to young people. when the old folks who listen to hate radio and fox news die off how will you replace them, by making racist comments about obama being a black man? both pot and gay marriage should be legal as any libertarian and liberal will tell you.

It's striking that governors like Perry, Palin and Sanford draw enormous attention to themselves but moderate Republicans are barely noticed. Would imagine that this will go on for some time. The fiscally-conservative voter who doesn't want government dealing with social issues is out there but is barely heard. I think it basically comes down to political funding. If you are socially conservative, there is a way to access money and that still is the only way to get out of the gate.

i understand that they have to play to their base but the base won't deliver office to them becasue they can't win elections with the base alone. the trouble is that in order to pander to the base they have to accomodate people like freedom, but by appealing to the baser insincts they turn off the vast middle in the process.
i believe the gop is stuck for decades and won't resurface until they find a way to placate the hard right while at the same time portraying themselves as tolerant and reasonable.
i would suggest that they phase out the religious bits and play to their strengths which is the idea of the rugged individualist who determines his own destiny.

I can understand why gay couples could be denied a Christian marriage, depending on one's interpretation of the Bible.

i would think any repub leader with brains would want to appeal to young people. when the old folks who listen to hate radio and fox news die off how will you replace them, by making racist comments about obama being a black man?


both pot and gay marriage should be legal as any libertarian and liberal will tell you.

The issue, though, isn't one of Christian marriage. The issue is one of civil marriage and marriages from churches that don't have an issue. If your church is against gay marriage, it does not and will not need to perform gay marriages if legislation passes. This is guaranteed under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

However, there is no reason why a gay couple couldn't be married by a Justice of the Peace, a ship's captain or even an Elvis impersonator (although that might also be considered a religious ceremony). There is no reason to deny the right to churches who do not have a problem.

The issue is a question of whether marriage is a civil or religious institution in this debate. This is where the whole debate lies. The problem is that the law only addresses marriage as a state institution. Atheists can marry. Agnostics can marry. They do not need to go to some house of worship. However, they are considered just as married as any other married couple. Obviously, in the face of it, marriage (at least as this debate goes) is a civil contract. The ceremony is offered as a sort of sacrament at religious institutions, but it is not restricted to those institutions.

Because of this, in order to forbid gay marriage, there must be some sort of rational basis to do so. However, those who have railed against it have done so using either an arguement about religion (which, as I showed above, is not valid) or about the traditional definition.

The definition of marriage, however, has changed numerous times. In early times, women were treated as property and marriage was a property exchange. This led to polygamy and other rules not accepted today. Questions regarding interracial marriage and its appropriateness came forward. The rules changed then as well in Loving v. Virginia.

I believe gay marriage should be accepted by the government based on this reasoning. The arguements against gay marriage don't hold water and there is no reason to bar it.

The issue, though, isn't one of Christian marriage. The issue is one of civil marriage and marriages from churches that don't have an issue. If your church is against gay marriage, it does not and will not need to perform gay marriages if legislation passes. This is guaranteed under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

However, there is no reason why a gay couple couldn't be married by a Justice of the Peace, a ship's captain or even an Elvis impersonator (although that might also be considered a religious ceremony). There is no reason to deny the right to churches who do not have a problem.

The issue is a question of whether marriage is a civil or religious institution in this debate. This is where the whole debate lies. The problem is that the law only addresses marriage as a state institution. Atheists can marry. Agnostics can marry. They do not need to go to some house of worship. However, they are considered just as married as any other married couple. Obviously, in the face of it, marriage (at least as this debate goes) is a civil contract. The ceremony is offered as a sort of sacrament at religious institutions, but it is not restricted to those institutions.

Because of this, in order to forbid gay marriage, there must be some sort of rational basis to do so. However, those who have railed against it have done so using either an arguement about religion (which, as I showed above, is not valid) or about the traditional definition.

The definition of marriage, however, has changed numerous times. In early times, women were treated as property and marriage was a property exchange. This led to polygamy and other rules not accepted today. Questions regarding interracial marriage and its appropriateness came forward. The rules changed then as well in Loving v. Virginia.

I believe gay marriage should be accepted by the government based on this reasoning. The arguements against gay marriage don't hold water and there is no reason to bar it.

Get over your old arguement. Gay's can/do have/raise children for the benefit of us all. Gay's do have a right to marry because we're still Americans. That gives us the right to have the same civil rights as every other American. That's what makes America so great, the Freedom to make choices for yourself. If a woman is raped and gives birth to a child does that make that child less important to the next generation of citizens? Her parents weren't married, she wasn't wanted by at least one. If two people who are sterile get married, that is self serving, they will never be able to produce children, how are they helping out the greater good. Straight marriage is self serving and also has no benefit to society as a whole. Heck, at the age of 18 lets make sure you can produce children and assign you a partner. If you're unable or refuse to produce children then you get to pick a quick death of your choice. Please give some concrete examples of how society is somehow better because two consenting adults of the opposite sex are able to have a legal document saying they're attached to eat other. You can't because they are not valid enough to support your argument. The only support for the argument against gay marriage is because the bible says so, otherwise there is no argument.