Meghan McCain issues civil war warning…look out!

Meghan McCain, daughter of John McCain, is warning the GOP of an impending civil war.  She cites her desire for an “out with the old, in with the new” philosophy for the Republican party.  I do applaud Ms. McCain for stepping out from her father’s shadow and making her voice heard–and encouraging other young women to do the same.  However I think that her general idea is a bit misguided.  Ms. McCain seems to want to be “more inclusive” as a party by “…[b]reaking free from obsolete positions and providing real solutions that don’t divide our nation further.”  By “obsolete positions,” she means support for traditional marriage.  I have to wonder if Meghan has actually read the 2008 Republican Platform.  Her assertion is that by using “more gay-friendly language” the Republican party will garner a wider base and the attention of a younger, more hip crowd.  The latter may be true.  Welcoming gay marriage may quite possibly attract the attention of a younger crowd, but it would do so at the expense of the Republican crowd.  Ms. McCain seems to want the public, and the gay community, to believe that the Republican party is currently “anti-gay.”  She is mistaken.  The Republican party is pro-traditional-marriage.  I have yet to encounter a Republican, regardless of his/her age, who was opposed to “civil unions” to allow gay couples the same legal rights as married couples with regard to health care, next of kin notification, etc.  Republicans are opposed to the redefinition of the sanctity of marriage.  Please don’t be fooled, this is not an issue of rights.  There is no unalienable right for each person to marry his/her partner of choice.  Our unalienable rights were endowed by our creator.  We acknowledged this in the Declaration of Independence, and this term is referenced widely.  If we are ok with acknowledging that we do have a creator, aka God, then why would we think that He got it wrong when he designed us for procreation?

As a conservative Republican, I could care less what two grown people do in their bedrooms.  Contrary to what you may read in salacious headlines, the Republican party is not trying to butt into peoples’ sex lives.  Instead it is trying to esure that the definition of “marriage” is upheld.  Can we just call a spade a spade here?  If the issue were one of rights, civil unions would be welcomed by people like Ms. McCain.  We probably should address marriage vs. civil unions.  Essentially the problem as I understand it, is that there is no uniformity.  Some states, not all, recognize civil unions.  And some states recognize only their own civil unions, but not others.  Apparently some states allow certain benefits for civil unions, while other states do not allow or address the same benefits.  I vehemently agree that this is a problem.  There should be uniformly recognized laws which regulate civil unions.  I would support a federal level of protections under civil unions.  But I cannot and will not support the redefinition of the term “marriage.”  A marriage and a gay union is inherently different, and as such, the recognition of them will differ.  We cannot grant the right to procreate to a gay couple, it isn’t within our power.  Instead that right is granted by our creator.  The best we can do is to protect the rights of partners to have insurance benefits and the likes.  Even if every state in America guaranteed the right to marriage for all–gay and straight–the two types of marital relationships would still be different.  No amount of legislation will ever make them the same.  That is not discrimination, it is a simple genetic fact.  I, like Meghan McCain, have gay friends.  But that doesn’t mean that I am kidding myself into thinking that they could ever look forward to having a marriage like my husband and I share.  I do wish that they could have that.  But it wouldn’t be a matter of us changing the definition of marriage to suit their relationship.  It would be them pursuing different relationships that would allow them to procreate.  That is not my law, it is God’s law.

There is no storm brewing within the Republican party.  There is not a huge divide of the “young” and the “old.”  There is most certainly an awakening going on, but it has nothing to do with a war within the party.  To the contrary, if Meghan hasn’t noticed, the party is energized and electrified at the moment on a unified front.  I’d like to invite Meghan McCain to join the Republican party, but I would respectfully request that she not ask us to check our morals and values at the door. 

Meghan McCain speaking to the Log Cabin Republicans regarding her desire for the GOP to go gay.

Meghan McCain speaking to the Log Cabin Republicans regarding her desire for the GOP to "go gay."

Ms. McCain stated in her blog that Republican resistance to gay marriage goes against conservative values—and our own self-interest.  I wonder why it is that Meghan thinks sacrificing our values is good for the party?  Obviously she has a different idea of what conservative values are, than I do.  Certainly we would gain Democrats’ favor if we adopted their values, but what would the result be?  Do we really NEED two Democrat parties?  I mean I guess we could feasibly hold an election with one “liberal Democrat” and one “conservative Democrat” but somehow I think that is not what is best for our country.  Isn’t that the goal of having more than one party in the first place?  Is our goal not the betterment of our society?  As I understand it, we have differing philosophies, and the will of the population is served when the majority wins an election.  I may not agree with the Democrats who are in power, but I do respect the process which placed them there.  I don’t ask that their party, in the future, become more conservative, or even Republican for that matter.  I am not promising to support them if they would only change this or that about their party’s stance.  Their party is what it is, I happen to not agree with it.  That is precisely why I am a Republican.  If I wanted to vote according to a Democrat’s values, I would change party affiliations.  I would suggest Meghan think about that in regard to her own views if she feels that strongly about them.  Before this gets blown out of proportion, I am not suggesting that people who support gay marriage should not remain Republicans.  But in the same vein that I would not agree with changing our views on the sanctity of life and the horror that is abortion, I can’t support her view that we change our stance on the sanctity of marriage.


8 comments on “Meghan McCain issues civil war warning…look out!

  1. mike00000000001 says:

    I think we need to ignore the repubs and either go with the constitution party or form a “tea” party of our own.

  2. […] Original post by 1conservativemomma […]

  3. morsec0de says:

    “Republicans are opposed to the redefinition of the sanctity of marriage.”

    Strange, then, that an atheist like me can get married perfectly legally…

    • That’s not strange at all. If you are an atheist man who married a woman, why would I find that strange? I would find it strange that you would choose to be an atheist way before I would worry that someone of a different religious perspective married legally. Whether you acknowledge that God exists, the founding fathers acknowledged that He (or in your case, some deity) created you and endowed you with unalienable rights. You were created a man (I’m guessing by the avatar), so you were created to procreate with a woman. I, and other Christians, do not propose that we force others to believe in God or follow the Bible. I just don’t agree that the definition of the word “marriage” should be changed to acknowledge a relationship that could never perpetuate the existence of human beings as a species. As I said in the piece, I fully support the granting and protection of rights, just not a redefinition.

      • morsec0de says:

        “just not a redefinition.”

        So we should go back to traditional marriage?

        Shall I go and purchase a 9 year old from her father, then?

      • You aren’t going to agree with me because you don’t even agree with me on the basics of how you and I came into existence. However, this country was founded by people who did believe that we were created by God. God created men and women to procreate. Certain species were created with the ability to reproduce asexually, but humans are not one of them–that’s a fact whether you believe in God or not. Of course I am not advocating arranged marriages. I am advocating that marriage remain a ceremony and union between a man and a woman, for the purpose of perpetuating our species. I’m not going to argue that point with you though because at your core, you think that my beliefs are probably tantamount to a fairy tale. I am not called, as a Christian, to try to change you. I have presented the information and you have the free will to do with it as you wish.

  4. Rick Beagle says:

    Haven’t we tried the “separate but equal” thing before? And how exactly did that turn out for us?

    At some point you would think we would learn from our mistakes, own up to our bigotry, and move forward with social commitments that are fair and impartial to all (consenting adults).

    Why do you care if a homosexual couple get married? How exactly does that interfere in your ability to enjoy your life? How does that affect any part of your life at all?

    It doesn’t, and outside a rather myopic view of the Bible there is absolutely no reason that you should conceivably oppose this. And for the record, that myopic view of the Bible has been used countless times to strip or prevent people from obtaining equality (people of color and women as two easy examples). Again, at what point do we actually learn from our mistakes, and just do the right thing?

    Arrrghhhh, palm to forehead…..

    Rick Beagle

  5. Don S says:

    This country was also founded on the principle that there should always be a “separation of church and state.” A little bit of American history research reveals that most of the founding fathers were not Christians but Deists who did not deny the existence of Jesus but had a fair amount of distrust for religion and the Church. They ensured that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States (article 6, section 3 U.S. Constitution).

    Marriage is not just a religious institution, it’s also a civil economic and political institution. Therefore any sort of religious testimony as to why marriage can only be between a man and woman is completely invalid. Churches don’t want to perform gay marriages, fine. But, government cannot legally deny a license to any two citizens wishing to enter a marriage. Religious inclinations are irrelevant at the justice of the peace…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s