Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Saturday, March 23, 2019

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) became the third Republican U.S. senator to express support for marriage equality Wednesday, and it didn’t even take one of her children coming out — that we know of. Alaska’s senior senator was actually persuaded by other people’s children.

In her op-ed explaining her decision, she described an Alaskan foster family she recently nominated for an “Angels in Adoption” award:

I bring them up because the partners were two women who had first made the decision to open their home to provide foster care to the eldest child in 2007.  Years later – and after a deployment abroad with the Alaska National Guard for one of them – they embraced the joy and sacrifice of four adopted children living under the same roof, with smiles, laughter, movie nights, parent-teacher conferences and runny noses.

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.

This couple managed to convince Murkowski — who lost to Tea Partier Joe Miller in her last GOP primary and went on to be re-elected as a write-in candidate — to join the majority of Americans who support same-sex marriage. And in turn the senator has now put together the definitive small-government conservative argument for same-sex marriage:

First, this is a personal liberty issue and has to do with the most important personal decision that any human makes. I believe that, as Americans, our freedoms come from God and not government, and include the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What could be more important to the pursuit of happiness than the right to choose your spouse without asking a Washington politician for permission? If there is one belief that unifies most Alaskans – our true north – it is less government and more freedom. We don’t want the government in our pockets or our bedrooms; we certainly don’t need it in our families.

Secondly, civil marriage also touches the foundation of our national culture: safe, healthy families and robust community life. In so many ways, sound families are the foundation of our society. Any efforts or opportunity to expand the civil bonds and rights to anyone that wants to build a stable, happy household should be promoted.

Thirdly, by focusing on civil marriage — but also reserving to religious institutions the right to define marriage as they see fit — this approach respects religious liberty by stopping at the church door.

LGBT activists may quarrel with the particulars and with the simple fact that these elementary arguments must even be made. But this puts the case for equal marriage in the language of the more than 40 percent of America that votes Republican no matter what. And if liberty, God, more freedom, liberty, and family aren’t good enough for them.

She puts a little


on top:

I recently read an interview where Ronald Reagan’s daughter said that she believes he would have supported same-sex marriage, that he would think, “What difference does it make to anybody else’s life?” I also think because he wanted government out of peoples’ lives, he would not understand the intrusion of government banning such a thing. This is not what he would have thought government should be doing.”

Would Reagan have been for same-sex marriage? Maybe — once he was out of office, the way he supported an assault weapon ban. But does it matter? No. Murkowski, like Reagan, knows her audience.

Regardless of what the Supreme Court decides about same-sex marriage next week, marriage equality is inevitable. The question is how quickly Republicans will accept that fact. And if they speak about it as Senator Murkowski has, that will happen much more quickly.

You may also enjoy “This May Be The Greatest Letter Any Elected Republican Has Ever Written.

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 399

23 responses to “This May Be The Best Small-Government Argument For Same-Sex Marriage You’ll Ever Read”

  1. Catskinner says:

    It’s hard not to like Lisa Murkowski.

    • disqus_ivSI3ByGmh says:

      Especially as Sarah “the-former-governor-of-Alaska-who-quit-before-her-term-ended-because-she-couldn’t-take-the-pressure-then-got-fired-by-Roger-Ailes-for-losing-ratings-and-advertising-revenue” Palin cannot stand her.

    • Sand_Cat says:

      Yeah, if you’re a brainless moron.

  2. howa4x says:

    The republicans think that having liberty is about owning a gun and being an evangelical. They claim to want government out of their lives but when elected actually pass more restrictive laws against people who don’t believe exactly like they do. We all know that it seems like republicans are sexually crazy since their men are obsessed with women’s vaginas and usually pass laws that go right into it. (vaginal probes). Republicans see same sex marriage as a religious issue which is contrary to the constitution they claim to defend. Every time they open their collective mouth’s on these issues they loose more voters. My kids are in their 20’s and would never think of voting republican. They grew up with gay friends and do see what the problem is. It seems like the elected republican men are older and whiter and would be a good fit with an inquisition where they can actually torture people who don’t believe like they do. They keep appealing to a shrinking base, and life is going past them.

  3. Pamby50 says:

    Glad to hear Sen Murkowski has evolved to accept that same sex marriage is ok. Now if the republican party can just get out of a woman’s vagina, I would be happier.

  4. silence dogood says:

    The love that dare not speak its name now won’t shut up. Makes ya sick.

    • charleo1 says:

      Does it really? Make you sick? Too smart to buy into all that Jeffersonian
      garbage, about life liberty, and the pursuit of one’s own happiness. I’m
      with you, Pal. For me to be responsible for my own happiness, is just too
      much pressure. I like it when government bureaucrats, and politicians,
      make my personal decisions for me. It’s so liberating.

      • silence dogood says:

        Do what ever you want. Keep it legal. Don’t ask the Government to endorse it.

        • charleo1 says:

          Why should I need to ask the government to endorse it?
          I thought the government was supposed to work for me.
          My government don’t get to use my tax dollars to pay,
          some balding bureaucrat, to enforce his idea of morality.
          First of all, it’s not his job. And second, it’s not his business.
          And third, if I wanted to live where the government is in
          charge of my morality, I would move to fucking Uzbekistan

          • silence dogood says:

            I said DON’T ask the government to endorse it. Try to follow along. It shouldn’t be that difficult.

          • silence dogood says:

            By the way you can’t possibly be as stupid as this post makes you sound. I am guessing there is some alcohol abuse involved.

          • Sand_Cat says:

            He’s just making a generous but ultimately futile effort to get down to your intelligence level.

          • silence dogood says:

            You people really have nothing to offer. Your all on empty.

        • Sand_Cat says:

          Sounds like you’re pretty sick to start with.

    • plc97477 says:

      Maybe Obamacare can help you.

  5. Sand_Cat says:

    The only “small government” argument in favor of same-sex marriage that should need to be made is (trumpet flourish!) “small government.” The fact that anything else needs to be said shows the grotesque hypocrisy of the whole “small government” crowd, who apparently think a Federal or State government agent needs to be sitting in every bedroom to supervise the goings on there, but wants the government “off our backs.”

  6. commserver says:

    I am not sure what the Senator really stands for but there don’t seem to be any repercussions from her constituents. That is a good sign.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.