 "Photo: The Maroon")
Sometimes it seems like the Republican Party is hell-bent on keeping itself as politically impotent as possible. Let me be clear. I don’t mean it is unable to get votes or raise political capital. It can do both things. On the other hand, it undermines itself at every turn.
Most key Republican tenets, like fiscal conservatism, small government and state rights, are ideas that people can accept on an intellectual level, whether they disagree with them or not. Unfortunately, party elders insist on distracting from these more important issues to focus on things like the absurd crusade against gay marriage rights.
Not only does this distract, it repels an entire huge bloc of voters, namely an otherwise conservative youth. Very few college educated young people can accept the idea that homosexual relationships are somehow inherently wrong and lesser. Instead we see the hypocrisy of that argument: That a party that argues for smaller government insists on forcing government into the bedroom, the last place it should be.
I, for example, want nothing more politically than to ease taxes and government spending and make sure that I keep my guns. Unfortunately, I cannot in good conscience vote for a man or woman who will not let my gay friends marry. I believe that this holds true for many people. Marriage, perhaps, is the wrong word – it has religious connotations.
The government has no business marrying people. Marriage is between two people and their church. The government should grant civil unions to any two consenting adults who want to be together, and stop there.
Recently, during the November election in New York, the Republican Party machine became frustrated with candidate Dierdre Scozzafava because she was too liberal – meaning she backed gay rights. She did, however, support the party on the all-important health care debate that was within mere votes of passing or failing.
So, what did they do to hold their claim to the traditionally Republican spot? Did they ignore that little fact and support her for the 98 percent of the times that she toed the party lines?
No! The Party backed ultra-conservative Doug Hoffman, who unsurprisingly, split the New York vote in half. What happened next was fairly predictable. Scozzafava dropped out and backed the Democrat, at least in one instance citing her support for gay marriage, and the Republican candidate lost.
Why, someone please tell me, is it more important to support a hypocritical, pseudo-religious witch-hunt that has absolutely nothing to do with government, than it is to focus on serious issues that face our nation?
Let’s face it, no matter how rabidly against it you are, you must admit that the gay marriage debate does not affect national security or welfare. In fact, you are doing nothing but alienating a large chunk of voters, gay and straight, future and present, and more importantly, oppressing some of the truest Americans out nation has to offer, all in the name of patriotism.
I would like nothing better than to join the fold of the Republican Party, but it always manages to push me away.
Alex Fournet can be reached at amfourne@loyno.edu
7 comments
Exactly how is allowing Gay couples the exact same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted going to affect “traditional marriage?" Marriage equality for Gay couples will have precisely ZERO impact on your life, your marriage, your church, and your children. Your church will never be forced to marry Gay couples, any more than it is forced to marry non-Christian couples. Public schools will not be forced to “teach” about Gay marriage, any more than they are forced to teach about Straight marriage. Instead you should ask yourself why law-abiding, taxpaying Gay Americans should be forced to subsidize all the legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples enjoy, when we are unable to take advantage of those same incentives to marry? And since when do voters get to decide that the rights that apply to them DO NOT apply to minorities?