Lisa Murkowski Becomes Third GOP Senator To Support Same-Sex Marriage

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2013 3:38 PM GMT
    Murkowski becomes the 54th sitting U.S. Senator to support marriage equality.

    Senator Murkowski jut released this statement:

    The Supreme Court is set to make a pair of decisions on the topic of marriage equality shortly, and the national conversation on this issue is picking back up. This is a significant moment for our nation when it comes to rethinking our society’s priorities and the role of government in Americans’ private lives and decisions, so I want to be absolutely clear with Alaskans. I am a life-long Republican because I believe in promoting freedom and limiting the reach of government. When government does act, I believe it should encourage family values. I support the right of all Americans to marry the person they love and choose because I believe doing so promotes both values: it keeps politicians out of the most private and personal aspects of peoples’ lives – while also encouraging more families to form and more adults to make a lifetime commitment to one another. While my support for same sex civil marriage is something I believe in, I am equally committed to guaranteeing that religious freedoms remain inviolate, so that churches and other religious institutions can continue to determine and practice their own definition of marriage.

    With the notion of marriage – an exclusive, emotional, binding ‘til death do you part’ tie – becoming more and more an exception to the rule given a rise in cohabitation and high rates of divorce, why should the federal government be telling adults who love one another that they cannot get married, simply because they happen to be gay? I believe when there are so many forces pulling our society apart, we need more commitment to marriage, not less.

    http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/lisa-murkowski-becomes-third-gop-senator-to-support-same-sex-marriage/politics/2013/06/19/69019
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2013 3:42 PM GMT
    This is actually kind of shocking seeing as she comes from a securely red state. Maybe this will encourage local Alaskan politicians to changel their views. Also something has got to be in the works in the Senate for more and more Senators to be jumping on the bandwagon.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2013 4:05 PM GMT
    EuphoricDanger saidThis is actually kind of shocking seeing as she comes from a securely red state. Maybe this will encourage local Alaskan politicians to changel their views. Also something has got to be in the works in the Senate for more and more Senators to be jumping on the bandwagon.

    She should co-sponsor ENDA next to show that she's genuine.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2013 4:08 PM GMT
    Even republicans can read polls. This late in the game is probably too late for people in Alaska who support gay marriage and too early for the teabaggers who will be outraged.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2013 4:21 PM GMT
    madfacts saidEven republicans can read polls. This late in the game is probably too late for people in Alaska who support gay marriage and too early for the teabaggers who will be outraged.

    I hope those that support gay marriage in Alaska do not actually feel that way. The point of lbgt activism is to point out how the opposition to lgbt equality is wrong and we shouldn't hold it against those that once had a different view. It's kind of like those that boycott a business for some reason and then when the business changes its policy, people still refuse to use the business. What was the point of the boycott? I personally could care less if Murkowski is just reading the polls and what she personally feels about lgbt people. What I do care about is how her votes affect lgbt people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2013 8:05 PM GMT
    Iceblink said
    madfacts saidEven republicans can read polls. This late in the game is probably too late for people in Alaska who support gay marriage and too early for the teabaggers who will be outraged.

    I hope those that support gay marriage in Alaska do not actually feel that way. The point of lbgt activism is to point out how the opposition to lgbt equality is wrong and we shouldn't hold it against those that once had a different view. It's kind of like those that boycott a business for some reason and then when the business changes its policy, people still refuse to use the business. What was the point of the boycott? I personally could care less if Murkowski is just reading the polls and what she personally feels about lgbt people. What I do care about is how her votes affect lgbt people.


    I agree with your take on boycotts but to me politicians play this out a bit differently. One creates change, the other creates coattails.

    I don't feel very strongly about someone picking up our ball who hadn't been fervently against us but was merely playing for the opposing team because that's the only team that would hire them. Now I don't know who this person in particular is, but if you have someone who was explicitly against us and vocal about it, then I don't want them speaking for our side even if they come over to our side willingly. For me, they honor their change of heart best when they take their previous rantings to a back seat and simply
    stfu.gif

    In other words, I don't believe that someone who was out to hurt us deserves the honor of trying to heal us.

    We will heal ourselves from within, without them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2013 8:42 PM GMT
    I thought that this story was the best part of the entire article about her backing gay marriage. This is really what it's all about and if a politician can relate to a story like this, then I think they deserve the support of the LGBT community as an example of someone who sees why the fight has been so intense.


    UPDATE: 10:50 a.m. -- In a statement on marriage equality, Murkowski spoke of an Alaskan lesbian couple who adopted four children and said the family's story influenced her thinking:

    Yet despite signing up and volunteering to give themselves fully to these four adorable children, our government does not meet this family halfway and allow them to be legally recognized as spouses. After their years of sleepless nights, after-school pickups and birthday cakes, if one of them gets sick or injured and needs critical care, the other would not be allowed to visit them in the emergency room – and the children could possibly be taken away from the healthy partner. They do not get considered for household health care benefit coverage like spouses nationwide. This first-class Alaskan family still lives a second-class existence.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2013 8:52 PM GMT
    Madame Palin, your thoughts???
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2013 9:23 PM GMT
    dayumm saidMadame Palin, your thoughts???


    Thoughts? So that's what those beeps and clicks are. Seems all the SETI research equipment missed that. Thanks for the heads up.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2013 9:24 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    dayumm saidMadame Palin, your thoughts???


    Thoughts? So that's what those beeps and clicks are. Seems all the SETI research equipment missed that. Thanks for the heads up.


    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2013 9:25 PM GMT
    eb925guy saidI thought that this story was the best part of the entire article about her backing gay marriage. This is really what it's all about and if a politician can relate to a story like this, then I think they deserve the support of the LGBT community as an example of someone who sees why the fight has been so intense.


    UPDATE: 10:50 a.m. -- In a statement on marriage equality, Murkowski spoke of an Alaskan lesbian couple who adopted four children and said the family's story influenced her thinking:

    Yet despite signing up and volunteering to give themselves fully to these four adorable children, our government does not meet this family halfway and allow them to be legally recognized as spouses. After their years of sleepless nights, after-school pickups and birthday cakes, if one of them gets sick or injured and needs critical care, the other would not be allowed to visit them in the emergency room – and the children could possibly be taken away from the healthy partner. They do not get considered for household health care benefit coverage like spouses nationwide. This first-class Alaskan family still lives a second-class existence.


    At least they're not calling us pedophiles too much anymore. Now if only we could get legitimacy on our own and not simply for the sake of the children, as adorable as they may very well be. I certainly was. My mother told me I'm gorgeous.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2013 11:05 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    Iceblink said
    madfacts saidEven republicans can read polls. This late in the game is probably too late for people in Alaska who support gay marriage and too early for the teabaggers who will be outraged.

    I hope those that support gay marriage in Alaska do not actually feel that way. The point of lbgt activism is to point out how the opposition to lgbt equality is wrong and we shouldn't hold it against those that once had a different view. It's kind of like those that boycott a business for some reason and then when the business changes its policy, people still refuse to use the business. What was the point of the boycott? I personally could care less if Murkowski is just reading the polls and what she personally feels about lgbt people. What I do care about is how her votes affect lgbt people.


    I agree with your take on boycotts but to me politicians play this out a bit differently. One creates change, the other creates coattails.

    I don't feel very strongly about someone picking up our ball who hadn't been fervently against us but was merely playing for the opposing team because that's the only team that would hire them. Now I don't know who this person in particular is, but if you have someone who was explicitly against us and vocal about it, then I don't want them speaking for our side even if they come over to our side willingly. For me, they honor their change of heart best when they take their previous rantings to a back seat and simply
    stfu.gif

    In other words, I don't believe that someone who was out to hurt us deserves the honor of trying to heal us.

    We will heal ourselves from within, without them.

    I do you agree with you somewhat. If, and I never see this happening, somehow Michele Bachmann came around to support marriage equality, I doubt she would ever be asked to be the honorary grand marshal of a pride parade or president of hrc. Still, we should welcome a positive change of view no matter where it comes from.

    Also, although Murkowsi is a Republican, this is not that huge of leap for her. She voted of dadt repeal and hate crimes legislation. She was never really thought of as one of the enemies of lgbt equality. She has just evolved now on this issue of marriage equality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2013 5:06 AM GMT
    Iceblink saidI do you agree with you somewhat. If, and I never see this happening, somehow Michele Bachmann came around to support marriage equality, I doubt she would ever be asked to be the honorary grand marshal of a pride parade or president of hrc. Still, we should welcome a positive change of view no matter where it comes from.

    Also, although Murkowsi is a Republican, this is not that huge of leap for her. She voted of dadt repeal and hate crimes legislation. She was never really thought of as one of the enemies of lgbt equality. She has just evolved now on this issue of marriage equality.


    I'm cool with what you say about this person specifically. I was not aware of her stance.

    But I've witnessed people change both for the good and to the bad though I tend to think of it less as change and more of becoming what was already there. As much as I allow for change in another person--& I understand people fuck up, people have to learn things, not everyone is such a good thinker, everyone has all sorts of issues & influences, etc.--you still have to judge whether change is real or real convenient. Even if allowing for sudden revelation, the devil owes dues.

    So while I welcome a reduction of attack, I do not welcome the poseur as positive change. I would imagine that more as a power drain than any sort of additional resource which we can accommodate at our convenience, not theirs. That's one reason why I say take a back seat so they subtract from those they are now betraying without also subtracting from we who they used to assault.

    I don't believe in a magic wand of granting authenticity even if it is fashionable to cut a deal. Stripping away the bullshit take work.