Family and Freedom – Republicans for Marriage Equality

Family and Freedom – Republicans for Marriage Equality


In 2007, I announced my support for marriage
equality for two reasons. Family and freedom.
As a republican, I believe in conservative values, like responsibility and limited government.
Our party is changing on this issue, thanks to leaders like Dick & Lynn Cheney, Laura
Bush, Ted Olson, and Cyndi McCain. Marriage strengthens families, and we need
more of that in this country, not less. Please join us.

65 Replies to “Family and Freedom – Republicans for Marriage Equality”

  1. It's neat that some republicans support marriage equality, but I'm still not voting for them since I'd also like to see that women keep their rights to their own bodies, thank you very much.

  2. WOW. I thought the tent was shrinking in the GOP. Can you convince your other Republicans? Let the TeaParty radicals fade like other fads….

  3. Marriage was already "re-defined" when gay marriage stopped being an isolated event and started being recognized in places across the world. And technically, limited government wouldn't be recognizing any type of relationship at all.

  4. If what you really want is to limit government, then limit government getting involved in gay people's pursuit of happiness.

  5. and the only reason he and his wife support gay marriage is because they are personally affected by it (because of their gay daughter.)

  6. If Republicans were really fiscal conservatives, none have been in my life time, and like this guy on social issues, I could vote for them.

  7. I support equality by supporting independent activist – not mega groups that do nothing to help LGBTs in poverty while their EDs make 6figure salaries.

  8. So same sex couples adopting and raising some the over 100,000 orphans that aren't adopted each year, in the United States, is virtually worthless to society?

  9. Don't ignore that rest of his flawed argument. I mean he just said that the purpose of marriage is children, so wouldn't that mean that heterosexual couples who don't want to have a child or can't have a child (infertile, barren, hysterectomy, vasectomy, menopause, many horrible forms of cancer, accidents, etc) shouldn't be able to get married either?

  10. Why are you here, loser? To show your animosity towards gay people? That's all you have to justify your arguments…and even that is irrational. Try thinking about how you can make the world a better place rather than treating the people around you like they're worthless. There are millions of couples in this world who can't have children together. That doesn't make them any less human than you. Get over yourself.

  11. True. Then I guess I also shouldn't ignore his "optimal environment" comment and say that the vast majority of scientific institutions have found children raised by homosexual couples are no worse off than ones raised heterosexual couples.

  12. Look at all the bigotry and homophobia you've posted.

    Perhaps you'd like to explain why every single major scientific institution on the planet has issued statements in support of marriage equality?

  13. Here's a sample for you from one of the largest scientific/academic organizations in the US:

    Google APA + same-sex marriage

  14. You do know that 30 samples is about the magic number for statistical significance, right? Even though 100 isn't a huge sample size by anyone's measure, it is enough to show trends. The fact that this quote is from a 'scientific' study makes me doubt the legitimacy of the organization that published it.

  15. Yikes, just glancing at all of the heterosexual comments on page one, this 'debate' – What Debate? Your Straight, I'm Gay. We're all entitled to love who we love, and no one is superior regardless of 'beliefs' – as we live our very short life on this earth we share. Debate, go debate why you are straight. Who knows, who cares. Equal rights is and always will be the Winner as we slowly (ever so slowly) continue, like all that is life – which is far from our species, expand.

  16. I think the obvious solution is to just start pursuing gay relationships with the children of Republican. DONE.
    Sure, we'd technically be "coming to corrupt their children", and the first few dinners with the family would be a tad awkward, but come on people, if we can get more Republicans converted, we might even get Rick Santorum to come out of the closet in his lifetime.

  17. When you're presented with proof you come up with excuses – the APA is largest organization of its type in the entire world.

  18. Oh look more lies from you – please Google CPA + Same-sex marriage this time 'round to see a pdf file from the Canadian Psychological Association on this, in addition to the APA.

  19. How many states voted down gay marriage since polls starting showing a shift of majority opinion in 2011? Only 1. NC, where even the most left biased polls showed defeat.

    The reason why some supporters resort to name calling is that there is absolutely no scientific reason to deny gay marriage or gay rights, so they're angry. And rightfully so, when the opposition always resorts to slippery slope arguments and public paranoia to get their way, just as you've illustrated on some of your posts.

  20. "Irrational accusations of hatred often become self-fulfilling prophecies."

    …which, if you meant "I hate those who accuse me of hate" might make some sense. But because you actually mean "I hate all gays (whether they accuse me of hating them or not)", makes you a BIGOT.

  21. Except it has nothing to do with women's bodies if it's another human's body. Killing another is NOT gay rights, it's still murder and you should be ashamed of your support for the grisly practice we call abortion.

  22. Child rearing, improved health, reduced stress, increased tourism, and increased immigration just to name a few off the top of my head. And their is nothing selfish about wanting equal rights when there is no rational reason to deny them.

  23. Part1
    Adoption is not the only option. There is also donors, surrogacy, or children from a previous relationships/marriages. As quality is concerned, show me a valid study that shows that same sex couples are worse parents.

  24. Part2
    Heath and stress levels do benefit society as a whole. When a minority group, not just individuals, feel less stressed they have a greater outlook on life. This in turn means that they become more concerned for there own future and and less likely to participate in risky activities. This means that they have a greater chance at becoming successful and contributing more back to society.

  25. At what point did I say the sole reason for marriage was to improve health and reduce stress? Lets recap for a moment. I stated that there was multiple benefits to recognizing same sex marriage, such as child rearing and heath improvements. Then you said that health and stress were “benefits to the individuals, not the public”, to which I explained how it does benefit society as a whole. I did not say anything about improved health and reduced stress being the only reason.

  26. Still love the "it's been voted down 32 times!" argument. As if something being popular makes it the right thing to do. Wasn't Christie just denouncing that very thing tonight in his keynote?

    And let's be honest. Not to pretend that they are the same (they aren't, other than being civil rights issues), but if Jim Crow, segregation, and slavery had been up to state votes, they'd have stayed around for decades. The American majority has a history of being cruel to minorities in the voting booth.

  27. 0:12 Sanders and Cheney support gay marriage because of their daughters. Laura Bush and Cindy McCain support it when their husbands are not running for office anymore.

  28. Problems such as?

    What have you pointed out? The only thing you've made an argument for is that health improvements shouldn't be the sole reason for receiving marriage benefits, which I've stated multiple times that it's only one of various reasons for legalizing same sex marriage.

  29. And why not? You haven't given any reason other than saying "We could say that anything benefitting individuals also benefits the society at large.” which obviously isn’t true and it doesn’t address that it benefits a class/race of people, not an individual(s). Also you still haven’t stated what problems.

  30. Yay for marriage equality!
    There are so many benefits that we as gay people are denied. We are definitely moving in the right direction!

  31. Dick Cheney for gay marriage? That's just because of his daughter. It doesn't change that Cheney is a criminal.

  32. The few Republicans supporting Marriage Equality should be embraced and supported. They stand as a stark contrast from their official party's stance on this issue. Not to mention, LQBT openly serving in our armed forces, any form of recognition of same sex families, Even in the hospital and in death. So, I applaud republicans working to stand up the bigotry and hatred of their party. I wish them luck. Frankly, they're going to need it!

  33. Search for "Too High a Price: The Case Against Restricting Same-Sex Parenting". They summarize decades of research, over 25 studies, all of which found that there is NO significant difference between the children of straight parents and the children of same-sex parents. In fact, the only difference noted at all was that ONE study found that the daughters of lesbian mothers were slightly more likely to believe themselves capable of non-genderstereotypical jobs. That's not a bad thing!

  34. I think the real question should be why does anyone receive "benefits" from the government.
    And actually extensive research proves that gay and lesbian parents are fully capable of raising children in a happy and caring environment. Even at my Christian university there are books demonstrating this. If you want to look at how qualified heterosexuals are at raising children look at today's divorce statistics. It's quite obvious children of heterosexual couples have a high percentage of being in

  35. He should have said no legitimate studies. You are citing something that anyone who understands science laughs at. Please take a step back. Ignore your confirmation bias.

  36. I think the term extensive means you have to look beyond the research of a religious sociology professor. And homosexuals are not trying to "de-link" marriage and children. There are plenty of gay and lesbian people who desire children. It's our society that attempts to belittle homosexuals into believing they shouldn't have children.

  37. The vast majority of people defending Regnerus' study are doing so on the premise that studies, even ones showing negative results, should be allowed to be conducted and published. They are not doing so on the basis of whether the study was valid or not.

    Regnerus' study was not conducted well at all. He grouped anyone who had ever had sex with someone of the same gender into the groups of gay or lesbian, regardless if it was a one time thing or even an affair…(continued in post 2)

  38. Post 2

    …He even states this in the study "I have, however, forced their mutual exclusivity here for analytic purposes. For example, a respondent whose mother had a same-sex relationship might also qualify in Group 5 or Group 7, but in this case my analytical interest is in maximizing the sample size of Groups 2 and 3 so the respondent would be placed in Group 2 (LMs).". And to clarify, he had 8 categories. Category 1 is "Lived in intact biological family…(continued in post 3)

  39. Post 3

    …(with mother and father) from 0 to 18, and parents are still married at present",category 2 is "mother had a same-sex romantic (lesbian) relationship with a woman, regardless of any other household transitions", category 3 is "father had a same-sex romantic (gay) relationship with a man, regardless of any other household transitions", category 4 is "adopted by one or two strangers at birth or before age 2", category 5 is "Divorced later or had joint custody",…(continued in post 4)

  40. Post 4

    … category 6 is "Stepfamily", category 7 is "Single parent", and category 8 is "Includes all other family structure/event combinations, such as respondents with a deceased parent".

  41. Post 5

    Also, for a more in-depth explanation of the problems of Regnerus' study Google "Regnerus Deconstructed How a New Study Misrepresents Same Sex Parents" by Zinnia Jones

  42. That means nothing. The University defines scientific misconduct as: “fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism, and other practices that seriously deviate from ethical standards for proposing, conducting, or reporting research are unacceptable and in some cases may constitute scientific misconduct." I didn't say that Regnerus was purposely trying to skew the results or that he lied. I showed that the study was severely flawed and useless, because of the how it was conducted.
    Nice try tho

  43. Assuming your talking about the article on National Review Online, it isn't proving me wrong. In fact, the article even agrees that there are problems with it, although the author marginalizes the problems, ignores other problems, and seems to do too much boasting of Regnerus. The article's primary purpose was arguing for thorough research into all subjects without the aim at favoring a specific side, which I fully agree, and to attack all previous studies conducted on homosexual couples.

  44. It is great for Jerry Sanders to remind us that there are Republicans out there who support marriage equality. Ted Olsen launched the court case that overturned Proposition 8 in California, and Republican State Senator Mark Grisanti cast one of the votes that passed gay marriage in New York state. These men are an inspiration for other Republicans.

  45. Um…denying the benefits that come with legally recognized marriage isn't denying rights, it's denying PRIVILEGES, which are simply in place to encourage viable population growth. You can still be together in a meaningful relationship without the tax benefits.

Leave a Reply

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