Anti-Gay Marriage Pledge a Pledge of Hate, a Pledge to Discriminate

So let me see if I get this right. In today political arena, one actually signs a pledge promising they will continue to discriminate against certain people, and, if they are elected, not only continue to discriminate against them, but appoint judges, amend the constitution and endorse legislation that discriminates against them.

It is a hate pledge.

It is an “I hate gays and they don’t deserve the rights that other people have” pledge.

The most recent signer of the hateful “marriage vow” pledge created by the National Organization for Marriage is Newt Gingrich, who, along with all the other GOPers except Ron Paul has signed a few of these things.

Spin this however you want, but this isn’t something that actually supports marriage between a man and a woman, it’s something that legislates hate and discrimination. Forget for a moment that the government has no business in America’s bedrooms, and that Newt has been married three times (oh the irony). The other irony is that it goes against the conservative grain of less government and less government intrusion. It says not all Americans are equal.

I’m all for a man marrying a woman. Marriage is great. But why on earth would I not want anybody to be happy, in love, and enjoy the same rights I have (like visiting my partner in the hospital, being eligible to share healthcare benefits or retirement benefits like pensions)? I don’t get it. People want to make that commitment, let them make it.

Listen to the arguments carefully. Much of the chatter has nothing to do with gay marriage, and seems to have more to do with some fuzzy philosophical “gay marriage damages traditional marriage and the family” or some such thing. The arguments don’t wash. The fact that a gay couple wants to make a lifetime commitment and enjoy the same benefits (and commitments) a heterosexual couple enjoys is, to me, a complete no brainer.

This single issue could, in the coming years, doom the GOP and its stone-age champions. While some conservatives argue that the candidates must continue to tout “family values” and other so-called conservative beliefs, I’d argue that, in the long run, is wrong-headed and doomed to fail. Their family values, voters will say, are not my family values.

You can bitch at me if you’d like, but clearly the bulk of the voters (both young and old) in America sit in the middle, not at the far right or far left. They are by in large moderates with more commonsense than politicians give them credit for, and want government not to coddle or intrude on them, but to protect the most vulnerable, enact and enforce laws that protect people and the environment, help businesses grow and embrace the diversity that made this country great in the first place. And most of them don’t see gay marriage as an issue.

Unfortunately, our politicians have moved to the dark side: Forget what’s good for the country and instead spend all our time, energy and money getting re-elected and pandering to those on the fringe of the party.

Money, of course (it’s always about the money) is why candidates pander . . . that’s where the big bucks are, especially during the primary wars. But in the end, getting large numbers of voters out in the general election is what counts. And those voters are in the middle. Obama tapped into that, but it remains to be seen if he can draw those voters to the polls after a rather disappointing three years.

Time will tell, but with some 70 percent of voters between the ages of 20 to 30 supporting marriage equality, Republicans are swimming against the tide. That will hurt them and provides another major talking point for Democrats as the election draws near.  

If Republicans continue down this road, they’ll continue to create the perception that they are not only anti-gay, but anti-poor and, ultimately, anti-middle class.