Republicans for Marriage Equality

I’ve trash talked a lot of Republicans on here, so I just wanted to take this time to post some good GOP news for a change. Mark Kirk, Republican from Illinois, is the second sitting senator to support marriage equality.

“When I climbed the Capitol steps in January, I promised myself that I would return to the Senate with an open mind and greater respect for others,” he said. “Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage. Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most. Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back — government has no place in the middle.”

I was cynical when Rob Portman (R-Ohio) “came out,” because though I was happy that there were finally Republicans in office supporting equality, I was frustrated that he seemed to be only doing it because he had a gay son. As though he (like Cheney) wasn’t able to put himself in other people’s shoes unless it effected his life or his family.

I hope that more Republican Senators will show themselves to be as brave and fair-minded as Senators Portman and Kirk. And I hope that it won’t take a near-death experience to get them there. Feel better, Senator Kirk. And thank you.

About emmawolf

I'm a freelance writer living in Baltimore with my husband, son, and two cats. I'm working on editing my first novel. I love reading, traveling, and the cello.
This entry was posted in Feminist issues and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Republicans for Marriage Equality

  1. Muriel says:

    Now if he really believed government has no place there, he’d oppose state-sanctioned marriage as a whole. But one step at a time, I guess.

    • emmawolf says:

      I don’t really understand or appreciate anarchy. I see the purpose of laws regarding marriage. They help with inheritance, immigration, and child support issues, just to name a few government issues that it touches on.

      • Muriel says:

        I know you think that way, but we can certainly at least agree on my comment on Kirk’s statement without prejudice towards his premise itself, can’t we?

        • emmawolf says:

          …I’m not sure. “if he really believed government has no place there, he’d oppose state-sanctioned marriage as a whole.” Yes, I agree with the point of that statement (but not the merits of opposing state-sanctioned marriage). Is that what you meant? (I woke up too early this morning. I apologize for any incoherency.)

          • Muriel says:

            Yes, that’s what I meant.
            Obviously, I also think government should indeed not meddle in marriages (since I think there shouldn’t be any government at all), but we probably won’t be able to reach a consensus on that.

What do you think?

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