Since 1972, the General Social Survey has collected data on the opinions and beliefs of people with a wide variety of demographics and backgrounds.
The GSS recently published results for 2010, and for the first time more Americans support than oppose same-sex marriage.
As a Republican, I previously felt I had to oppose same-sex marriage, and I wasn’t alone. According to the Pew Research Center, 81 percent of Republicans oppose same-sex marriage.
My main argument against same-sex marriage was that I believed it was an attack on the Bible, and it would destroy the sanctity of marriage.
That’s where I went wrong. That’s where I let my faith take precedence over my allegiance to the United States and the Constitution.
I feel that many Republicans put their faith and religious beliefs before the Constitution. Perhaps they should take a closer look at the Republican-Party Platform and see what it truly means to be Republican.
On page 51 of the Republican-Party Platform, it clearly states, “Individual rights and the responsibilities that go with them are the foundation of a free society. From the time of Lincoln, equality of individuals has been a cornerstone of the Republican Party.”
Sounds like 81 percent of Republicans decided to ignore that, or perhaps, to that 81 percent, equal doesn’t really mean equal. There was something similar not too long ago, way back when, equal was considered equal despite being separate.
If Republicans continue to read their party platform they will find it also states “We consider discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion, creed, disability, or national origin to be immoral, and we will strongly enforce anti-discrimination statutes.”
According to Merriam Webster’s dictionary, to discriminate is “to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit.”
What do same-sex marriage couples do that does not merit the right to marry?
Republican opposition to same-sex marriage is not only discriminatory, but a downright contradiction to what a Republican is supposed to stand for.
The platform opens by saying, “It is grounded on our heartfelt belief that our principles, our policies, and our vision will lead our American family, not just through present dangers, but to a horizon of prosperity and liberty mankind has only begun to explore.”
I once followed the Republican path I thought was leading to prosperity and liberty. I re-examined what it means to be Republican, what it means to put my country and Constitution above all else. I’m now a proud Republican that is anti-abortion, supports the right to bear arms and supports same sex marriage.
Anna Jacobsen • Apr 1, 2011 at 8:49 pm
yallen28, it is kind of scary that you feel you have the authority to call the author’s views mentally unhealthy and bad for society.
Please stop being a troll.
Anonymous • Apr 4, 2011 at 2:30 am
I wouldn’t attribute sharing my observation of the author’s cut-and-dry binary choice to “authority” anymore than you have “authority” to insult someone rather than rebuttal with why you don’t think this infantile binary choice is unhealthy or good for society. The paper’s readers, along with myself, would have greatly appreciated your reasoning as to why I was way off with my assessment. It would still be great if you did this.
It happens that I did not write that assessment in haste, and it is one that I stand by. And as I have stated before, the content is the source of my criticism, it is never a personal slight against the author; I will leave reverting to personal insults that lack substantive criticism to others.
I do understand that it was a provocative assessment, and I suppose there are many reasons why you would object. Perhaps you took it personally, being that you may be a Christian or belong to some other religious sect; perhaps you are a conservative; perhaps you are a devout constitutionalist (doubt this one, though); and perhaps you know the author, being that you used to write at the joint if I remember correctly. All of these possibilities could be wrong; only you know the answer to this one.
But if you still feel that placing everything in this world — family, friends, human and animal well-being, justice, virtue, etc. — should come second to the myths and philosophies of illiterates from the first century, and that this signifies a truly mentally and emotionally healthy human being, I would love to hear why you think so. If having faith in a tradition that is premised on the Son of God dieing for the sins of mankind is perfectly healthy, than somebody (or mass culture) may have taken you for a long ride. You will have lost your ability to call into question any sort of infantile and preposterous propositions about the world. If putting forth a political document — which has been amended numerous times and was written by individuals who felt treating certain kinds of people like farm equipment was compatible with the good life — as the new epitome of an Almighty, than as poster ewalter 270 stated, a Christian must transcend any sort of patriotism. To go a step further, any decent human being must transcend any sort of patriotism. To go even another step further, any sane and decent human being must transcend any myths of the present, middle- and early-ages that claim to have knowledge of the divine. This, in short, is why, in my view, such a statement warrants critical attention, despite the repulsive reactions from others that are the source of outlandish social mores that demand that we must respect other people’s unfalsifiable claims to knowledge simply because they believe them. And all of this is putting it mildly.
Anonymous • Apr 5, 2011 at 7:42 pm
I follow most of the logic at the end of your closing paragraph, but fail to see truth in your last assertion: that believing in unfalsifiable claims is necessarily unhealthy. If I may offer a reason by counter-example: there is no premise under which you could prove the statement, “Murder is bad,” yet sane and decent people believe the idea is a healthy one. So you may well be right in stating that believing in unprovable philosophies does not imply a healthy person, but you are also wrong in assuming it implies an unhealthy person.
Anna Jacobsen • Apr 6, 2011 at 6:29 pm
No, I didn’t take it personally, I just think you’re a bit full of yourself and your logical abilities (which are notable), and it comes out negatively in the way you comment.
Me calling you a “troll” is not an insult, it’s a descriptive label for your actions. You know what a troll is, I assume. I’m pretty sure you fit that description, not because you post off-topic, but because of the “attack mode” you seem to perpetually be in. I haven’t read every single one of your comments, but I have been hard pressed to find one that provided criticism or commentary in a constructive manner. So that label is not without substantive criticism.
As an aside, there are many times when I actually do agree with your comments, just not the manner you present them.
I hope this clarifies my earlier comment.
Manny • Mar 30, 2011 at 10:18 pm
Read Resident Alien by Stanley Hauerwas….
Anonymous • Mar 30, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Leonard,
Never mind re-evaluating your political values. If you’re putting a country before God, you need to re-evaluate your faith. As a believer in the bible it should be clear to you living a life the Lord calls you to transcends any sort of patriotism.
As for your comment regarding Republicans putting their religious beliefs before the constitution, I find it to be the opposite, which can be observed in their platform of reserving wealth and hate-based discrimination rather than grace towards others struggling with sin.
Mark Smith • Mar 30, 2011 at 7:12 pm
“Individual rights and the responsibilities that go with them are the foundation of a free society”.
“I’m now a proud Republican that is anti-abortion…”
It’s always mind-boggling that the Republican party can advocate individual rights and freedoms, yet seem to forget those tenets when facing issues like abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, and so on. If it’s a woman’s decision to get an abortion or give her aborted fetus to research, what right does the government have to come in and tell her no?
Alex Z. • Mar 30, 2011 at 3:15 pm
This is such a well written article. The only thing I would disagree with it letting our faith and religious values bow down to the Constitution when that should be the number one in our lives. However, it may sound contradictory to say but I agree with your final points on same-sex marriage and also support the equality of rights for all. (I would add more, but this is just a condensed version of the views I’ve struggled to come to terms with.)