|
"Mark My Words" started a thread called Sen. Koering: I just might vote YES for this bill!, and I was going to comment on it. As I started pecking away at the ol' keyboard, it occurred to me it should be the subject of a new thread - so, for those interested in commenting specifically about SF 120 and Senator Koering, continue to comment there. This thread is about traditional Republicanism, and equality.
I was raised in a staunchly Republican area (the DFL caucused at Perkins, and it was a small table at that) by strongly Republican parents. And until the mid 1990's, I considered myself a Republican. One of the many reasons I no longer consider myself a Republican, is Gay Rights.
Around the kitchen table, over dinner with family and coffee and cocktails when the neighbors were over, I heard my parents and their friends talk over and Over and OVER, over years and Years and YEARS, about:
1 - Less government was better government;
2 - Government needs to GET OUT of people's lives;
3 - A man's home is his castle; and
4 - Government stops at the front door of said castle.
Based on those four principles of conservative thought, if there's any party that should be championing Gay Rights, it's the Republican Party. After all, if those principles are valid, does it really matter if John is with Jane or John is with Jim, behind the door where less government stops?
Sadly, today's Republican Party is against Gay Rights due to religious theology, because if they were following political ideology, they would be championing Gay Rights.
One reason the DFL now outnumbers the GOP at caucus, in my hometown, is that.
I'll never forget my mother looking around the high school at the 2002 DFL caucus, saying she never EVER thought she'd attend a DFL Caucus. And she was surprised to see how many (former Republican) friends of hers were there, too.
|
