I read you advice to the GOP about moderating or "evolving" as you put it. You talked about social issues being the death of the republican party:
I know there are many out there, especially in the more conservative sphere, that regard me with disdain. I don’t fit into the traditional Republican box that the wingnuts who have hijacked my party think all Republicans should. For the last four years, I’ve been calling for Republicans to stop concentrating on social issues. I am a single woman in my 20s and that fact alone gave me the perspective that I don’t want to regulate a woman’s right to choice. I am pro-life, but because life is complicated, that choice is between a woman and her idea of a higher power. I believe if Roe vs. Wade were repealed, abortion would still go on. I care more about my economy, national security, and fiscal conservatism than I do about what other woman do with their bodies. It’s not my place, and I don’t believe it’s the government’s place, to make such decisions
Yes, Meghan abortion would still go on if Roe is repealed because repealing Roe doesn't make abortion illegal, it leaves it up to the states to decide. As a person who is a republican you should be believing in states rights, as that is what is meant, in part, by limited government. Limited government is part of the platform of the GOP. You see I think that you agree on abortion when it comes to this, I too don't believe that abortion should be a question of religion. I believe that abortion is an issue of personhood and the constitutional rights that a person has. Remember that line Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? It is a little difficult to pursue happiness if you are dead. To me abortion is about science, not about God. That question has never been answered in a court of law and I think it should be. Does a human being get afforded the same rights under the law that an egg of certain birds gets? I would like a court to answer the question why a bird egg has more value under the law than a human being does? They are laws in place that you will be fined and/or jailed for damaging the bird fetus, but a human being in this country isn't afforded the same rights. I think there is something wrong with that picture. Why don't you?
You go on to talk about immigration issues:
I think America needs a better immigration policy and immigrants who were brought here illegally as children shouldn’t be deported.
I too think that we need better immigration policy. It is next to impossible for a low wage earner to come here legally from Mexico, but it will take those same low wage earners from other countries. That makes no sense. Those things needs to change and adapt to the work force that we have and the work force that we need. I am first generation, so I know all too well about the advantages of immigrants coming to this country. This country was built by them and has flourished because of them. But I must ask you a few questions about your stance on "The Dream Act". You say that children brought here shouldn't be deported. But the questions that people with your view-point never seem to answer are as follows:
- Do we give those that came as children visa's but deport the parents? If so, do you think these children/young adults are going to come forward if they fear that it means that their parents are going to be deported?
- What about the ones that came here as children but are over the age restrictions that The Dream Act puts into place? Do we deport the 32-year-old, but not the 29-year-old? Or whatever arbitrary age that the law comes up with.
- Do they get to cut in line in front of the people who have been in other countries going through the proper and legal process? (As a relative of mine is doing)
- What do we do with the people who paid thousands upon thousands of dollars to go through the legal process? Do they get their money back? If not, doesn't that mean we are not being "fair"?
- How long before they are allowed to become citizens?
- Will they be afforded the same rights as other immigrants and citizens of this country who can sponsor relatives to come here? If so, doesn't that potentially quadruple the number of people we are giving amnesty to?
- What do we do about border security? If we don't secure the borders and every 30 years or so we give amnesty to people who come here illegally, why bother to have any immigration laws at all? It is essentially becomes an open border policy.
You see Ms. McCain it really isn't as black and white as your 20 something brain is led to believe that it is. The issue is very complicated and people like you won't answer the hard questions. That is the reason "right winged nuts" take the stand that they do. Do you believe that America should have no immigration policy? If so, doesn't that fly in the face of your desire to concentrate on national security? A de facto open border policy is a national security issue, wouldn't you agree? There can be no moving forward on this issue until the borders are secured. Is the federal government making any real attempt to do that? I think by the levels of crime in your home state that the answer to that question is no.
I would think that one of the things that you are saying is that we should compromise and get good law for all Americans. Forgive me if I am wrong about that. But I get this feeling that I am not. I am not blind to the fact that governing is about compromise. But another thing that my not in my 20's perspective has taught me is that when you are entering negotiations you need to start in a place that is further than where you end up.
Now, when you negotiate your contracts with MSNBC to
bash talk about conservatives don't you start at a higher rate? If so, why do think it is unreasonable for the republicans to do basically the same thing? Because what I am getting from your essay is that we should be starting with a position that isn't much different from the democrats. How exactly do you negotiate? I hope you have an agent that is better suited to take care of your needs. If not, you are doing yourself a big disservice.
Another thing that you talk about is fiscal conservatism. One of the things that leads to all the spending we do in this country is based on social issues. That is another thing that your 20 something brain has yet to learn. Fiscal conservatism requires discussion on social issues.
You have brought "gay rights". I don't care who someone loves. But I do care what the gay right movement is trying to accomplish; a total dismissal of the biblical view of marriage. That is bad and it must be punished. My view-point is bigoted. Many say that gay marriage will have no ill effects on society. While it is too new in this country to gauge that, it has been around in Canada for more than 10 years. A study has been recently released:
The formal effect of the judicial decisions (and subsequent legislation) establishing same-sex civil marriage in Canada was simply that persons of the same-sex could now have the government recognize their relationships as marriages. But the legal and cultural effect was much broader. What transpired was the adoption of a new orthodoxy: that same-sex relationships are, in every way, the equivalent of traditional marriage, and that same-sex marriage must therefore be treated identically to traditional marriage in law and public life.
A corollary is that anyone who rejects the new orthodoxy must be acting on the basis of bigotry and animus toward gays and lesbians. Any statement of disagreement with same-sex civil marriage is thus considered a straightforward manifestation of hatred toward a minority sexual group. Any reasoned explanation (for example, those that were offered in legal arguments that same-sex marriage is incompatible with a conception of marriage that responds to the needs of the children of the marriage for stability, fidelity, and permanence—what is sometimes called the conjugal conception of marriage), is dismissed right away as mere pretext.
When one understands opposition to same-sex marriage as a manifestation of sheer bigotry and hatred, it becomes very hard to tolerate continued dissent. Thus it was in Canada that the terms of participation in public life changed very quickly. Civil marriage commissioners were the first to feel the hard edge of the new orthodoxy; several provinces refused to allow commissioners a right of conscience to refuse to preside over same-sex weddings, and demanded their resignations. At the same time, religious organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus, were fined for refusing to rent their facilities for post-wedding celebrations.
They go on:
The new orthodoxy’s impact has not been limited to the relatively small number of persons at risk of being coerced into supporting or celebrating a same-sex marriage. The change has widely affected persons—including clergy—who wish to make public arguments about human sexuality.
Much speech that was permitted before same-sex marriage now carries risks. Many of those who have persisted in voicing their dissent have been subjected to investigations by human rights commissions and (in some cases) proceedings before human rights tribunals. Those who are poor, poorly educated, and without institutional affiliation have been particularly easy targets—anti-discrimination laws are not always applied evenly. Some have been ordered to pay fines, make apologies, and undertake never to speak publicly on such matters again. Targets have included individuals writing letters to the editors of local newspapers, and ministers of small congregations of Christians. A Catholic bishop faced two complaints—both eventually withdrawn—prompted by comments he made in a pastoral letter about marriage.
Reviewing courts have begun to rein in the commissions and tribunals (particularly since some ill-advised proceedings against Mark Steyn andMaclean’s magazine in 2009), and restore a more capacious view of freedom of speech. And in response to the public outcry following the Steyn/Maclean’saffair, the Parliament of Canada recently revoked the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s statutory jurisdiction to pursue “hate speech.”
But the financial cost of fighting the human rights machine remains enormous—Maclean’s spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, none of which is recoverable from the commissions, tribunals, or complainants. And these cases can take up to a decade to resolve. An ordinary person with few resources who has drawn the attention of a human rights commission has no hope of appealing to the courts for relief; such a person can only accept the admonition of the commission, pay a (comparatively) small fine, and then observe the directive to remain forever silent. As long as these tools remain at the disposal of the commissions—for whom the new orthodoxy gives no theoretical basis to tolerate dissent—to engage in public discussion about same-sex marriage is to court ruin.
Similar pressure can be—and is—brought to bear on dissenters by professional governing bodies (such as bar associations, teachers’ colleges, and the like) that have statutory power to discipline members for conduct unbecoming of the profession. Expressions of disagreement with the reasonableness of institutionalizing same-sex marriage are understood by these bodies to be acts of illegal discrimination, which are matters for professional censure.
Teachers are particularly at risk for disciplinary action, for even if they only make public statements criticizing same-sex marriage outside the classroom, they are still deemed to create a hostile environment for gay and lesbian students. Other workplaces and voluntary associations have adopted similar policies as a result of their having internalized this new orthodoxy that disagreement with same-sex marriage is illegal discrimination that must not be tolerated.
You see Ms. McCain, the agenda as well as the outcome has much broader effects than simple "fairness". You see people who have strong religious views; which I would hope you feel that they are entitled to, are being forced to not only accept something, but being stifled. The right of parents to pass down those biblical values to their children are being threatened. Tolerance requires that both sides accept opposing points of views. What is tolerant about private citizens being sued to accept something that goes against their deeply held belief system? I, for one, view marriage as primarily a religious institution that for some reason that the government decided to get involved with. Mostly so they can raise revenue with fees for licenses and the like. You say you don't want the government involved in issues between a person and their
God higher power when it comes to abortion but have no problem with that same interference when it comes to marriage.
So, I have a suggestion for you, take some of that hard-earned money that you have received
bashing discussing people like me, go and buy yourself a new pair of Jimmy Choos for the occasion and march yourself to your local board of elections and change your registration. Why wait?