Republican with a Social Conscience

A news headline today deals with the New Jersey state senate passing a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in that state. It is believed the bill will also be approved by the state’s other legislative body but ultimately vetoed by Governor Chris Christie. Same-sex marriage and gay rights are hot-button issues in the GOP presidential primaries with all remaining contenders vying to be as opposed to both as is possible.

As you may know, the state of Washington just approved same-sex marriages and the 9th District Court in California overturned that state’s Proposition 8 which outlawed same-sex marriage. Also in the news was a statement by Maryland’s governor hoping his state would become the next to expand individual rights to its citizens.

But while many conservative Republicans may be opposed to gay-rights and same-sex marriages, not all are. Below is a YouTube video of a Republican legislator in Washington State expressing why she supported the state’s recent expansion of individual rights. We need more people with her sensitivity, reason, and compassion.

2 thoughts on “Republican with a Social Conscience”

  1. Larry ,I believe marriage(1 of the few things I do know about)is more a religion issueand should be between a man and a woman. At the same time I also think there should be civil unions represented by leagal contract to protect individual rights.Why did the goverment become involved with marriages anyway, to collect a licence fee.maybe everyone should have a legal cival union and men and women can also have a marrage cerimony.actually then everyone could get married by whoever they want and govt would have no say. Civil union contact that gives every household the right to share their insurance and benefits. Also maybe the goverment should get out of lots of other things. let the bleeding heart liberals use their own money to support some of the things goverment uses our tax money for. Sorry to run on like that,wish i was at the truck stop for talks like this. Ray

    1. Government became involved in marriages to both control disease and to collect fees. Also, to provide a secular, civil means of marrying for those who did not want a religious based wedding. What constitutes a marriage is what people believe it to be. If religions want to define their version, that’s permissible. But, if others have a different view they should have that option. As the court in CA said, to call one marriage and another a civil union is to demerit or lessen those who chose civil union. There is no other reason so therefore it is unconstitutional. Notice that in all those states where full rights have been extended nothing bad has happened. There are still no volcanoes erupting in Mass.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.