Out and About

“Lisa Jones” is a contributing writer on Leavenworth St.

LisaJones01Nebraska is facing a lawsuit to overturn the constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. We could know as soon as the end of the week whether Judge Battalion will rule in favor of the plaintiffs raising the case against the state. While this may not mean that the state would immediately recognize same-sex marriage, it would be a clear step in that direction, pending anything further from the Supreme Court.

In general, Republicans have been on the side of traditional marriage, though the opposition to changing the definition of marriage is not monolithic. We are the Party where people who don’t agree with same-sex marriage, especially for religious reasons, can be “out and proud”, so to speak. (This is probably one of the best things about our party for which we never get credit–you can be socially conservative or socially liberal, either way, you can set up shop in the Big Tent if you believe in being fiscally conservative.).

A common criticism, even within the GOP, is whether we should even be focusing on social issues when they prove unpopular or controversial; do we lose traction in the national conversation when our debates discuss contraception more that fiscal policy? I know for me personally, the GOP represents my views on many social issues as well as economic, especially in regard to protecting the unborn. And there is the argument that liberal social policies, by definition, undermine conservative fiscal policy. But imagine if we were not historically the Party of those social issue standards. Would I really ever vote for a Democrat anyway? Probably not, because of their views on fiscal policy. If that is the case for most people, should social issues have that much prominence in our state and national discussion? Does it help us build a stronger GOP? Does that help us win?

I don’t know the answer. Discuss.

This is a time of great change. We will see how much the GOP changes with it.

15 comments

  1. Need more closet space says:

    Is the writer saying with a straight face that the Nebraska Republican Party is accepting of individuals who support same sex marriage rights. Thanks for hearty laugh to start my day.
    Anyway, the Republicans have had no problem lately ignoring (or flat out mocking) the Supreme Court when decsions have not gone their way. Seem to be more passionate about defending rights of cigar smokers than gay and lesbian community.

  2. Anonymous says:

    It’s not the republicans, it is the judges, everyone knows they have already decided. Battalion could have made the call.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Republicans, like Democrats, have no problem with a 50% divorce rate and serial monogamy. I’m not sure what part of traditional marriage thats a part of, except to call it the “American tradition of marriage.” The real damage caused this “tradition” has nothing to do with same-sex marriage; it has everything to do with the kind of moral rot we all happily ignore. Hell, Reagan was divorced. Why is that acceptable? Clinton and Gingrich are, with respect to marriage, morally interchangeable. Again, why is that acceptable?

    If two men or two women get married and stay married, more power to them. If they contribute to our 50% divorce rate and do the serial monogamy thing, with marriage after marriage after marriage, a pox on their house.

  4. LOL LOL LOL says:

    Where Lisa Jones sees a big tent, much of the outside world sees a flock of little people dressed in white sheets. Senator Bloomfield pulled his bill to grant concealed carry gun permits to the spouses of military residents of Nebraska rather than risk inadvertently recognizing gay marriages. At least we now know that Real Republicans hate gays more than they love guns.

  5. Anonymous says:

    In the CDC’s “National Marriage and Divorce Rate Trends,” the provisional data (using the CDCs words) for 2011 are:

    2,118,000 marriages.
    Marriage rate: 6.8 per 1,000 population.
    Divorce rate: 3.6 per 1,000 population (44 states and D.C.).
    ( 3.6 / 6.8 ) * 100 = 52.94%

    My arithmetic might be wrong. The CDCs stats might be wrong. Please show the error.

  6. 50% Divorce Rate Myth says:

    The 50% divorce rate is a myth that has been difficult for social scientist to get debunked. The myth is deeply ingrained in conventional wisdom and hasn’t been true since the 70’s. A study came at the end of the 2014 that goes into the actual data of divorce rates.

    Hop on the google machine and search for “Divorce Surge Is Over”, you” even find a good NY Times article that writes all about it.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Oh, I get it. if you separate divorce rates to date by decade of marriage, the 35% of marriages in the 1990s and the 15% of marriages from 2000 – 2010 are suddenly what, defensible? One divorce is too many, as is the foggy thinking that leads people into relationships for which divorce is the remedy in the first place. Again, why is that defensible? Sorry, not defensible. Complaint about same sex marriage ring hollow & opportunistic even in the light “favorable” statistics. And favorable here is “less awful.”

  8. Drago says:

    ME THINKS that if the GOP wants to grow it’s numbers, it needs to become more inclusive. Rather than steering people away from our party. People who appreciate and understand fiscal responsibility but might have grown weary of various ‘hardcore’ social stances,

  9. Anon says:

    I’d just settle for having a say in big social issues like marriage and abortion. Abortion policy has been pre-empted by the Supreme Court. I’m virtually certain that same-sex marriage will be too. Like a lot of other people, I have come to accept much readily the idea of same-sex marriage. In the early 1990’s polls showed Americans were more than 2-1 against it. Now it’s about even with those favoring it probably having a nose out in front in most states. Initiative 416 passed about 2-1 in Nebraska. If there were an initiative to repeal it the result would be close and I might well vote to repeal it. I think that people would be more accepting of same-sex marriage, and it would be a more meaningful victory for gays and lesbians, if the battle were won at the polls and not before the Supreme Court, but that’s likely not how it will go.

  10. Pete says:

    I’m a pretty outspoken Republican. I’m also very conservative in all of the right places, an advocate of personal liberty (we 20-somethings tend to be), and a big fan of a big tent.

    I think gay marriages ought to be recognized by the government. I don’t want the ceremonies happening in my church, but marriage as a social contract between two consenting adults should be recognized by the government, different sexes or not.

    The sun will rise tomorrow no matter how many guys marry other guys today, and nobody is going to stop me from going to work and making money and being happy. There’s other issues that may come along,, but those are for another day. We’re talking about social policies that affect <10% of the population, so why not just let that group of people live and be happy like the rest of us?

  11. Anonymous says:

    The gripes some Republicans have about same-sex marriage ring hollow in their, how shall I put it, tacit acceptance of and passive advocacy for divorce. The party should cease its hypocritical moralizing about marriage and STFU.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.