Ex GOP'rs WifeTalks Nice About Change of Heart on Gay Rights on Her Ex

 When an Ex wife speaks well of her husband particularly one that has taken a change of heart on something as sinful in the republican party as Gay Marriage, one has to listen. I’ve gone a step further and I am posting it as she wrote it.

dugal.jpg
Anthony Dugal is a fervent conservative -- a founding member of the local Tea Party, a vocal advocate for gun rights and small government, and don't get him started on Obama.

He's also an elected member of the Kalamazoo County Republican Party's executive committee and was a GOP candidate last fall for the Kalamazoo County Board of Commissioners.

As Dugal's ex-wife, I'm on his email list and frequently get his political missives. (He especially likes chiding me about the failings of the mainstream media.)
But his latest round of emails have taken me aback: The subject has been gay rights, and Tony's ire has been directed at Dave Agema, the Michigan Republican who has compared gays to alcoholics in desperate need of treatment and rehab.
Along with criticizing Agema, Tony also analyzed his own evolution on gay marriage and his take on the Republican Party's stance, offering an interesting insight into how views on gay marriage are changing even among hard-core conservatives.
Tony has given me permission to excerpt his email:
I do believe Agema hates gays. Why else would any responsible person in his position post such filth about homosexuals ... for no reason, other than to share hate? Agema is free to hate anyone he wants. But when he shared his hate with everyone, as a leader of our party, he crossed a line. (I'm glad I did not vote for Agema as our national committeeman).
Agema's Facebook post had nothing to do with policy, or a (Republican National Committee) position. If he'd posted an academic study which concluded that gay marriage is destructive to society, that would be a different matter -- as traditional vs. gay marriage is a fair policy debate, at least among sociologists and academics. But Agema posted nothing more than a hateful diatribe against gays -- which was full of inaccuracies (such as half of murders are committed by gays). How else can one describe what Agema said and did (and continues to defend), if not "hateful"?
For the record, I believe the GOP's stance on supporting only "traditional" marriage is short-sighted. It's a social issue, which divides voters, and will result in continued erosion of GOP election success.

The GOP insistence on "traditional" marriage reveals a closed-minded, non-inclusive approach. The RNC platform is not explicitly hateful toward gays who want to marry. But the position may be interpreted that way by many citizens.
The RNC Chairman said the vote supporting "traditional marriage" was unanimous. Bull crap! If there was truly no dissent among the 150 voting RNC members, then the GOP is as bad as the DNC … apparently stifling dissenting opinion. Not a recipe for success.
Government -- and the GOP -- should not be in the business of defining marriage. The matter should be left to churches & other religious groups. At the least, it should be a 10th Amendment issue, left to each state. This is the current scenario, with some states sanctioning gay marriage; most, including Michigan, rejecting it.
Understand my view: I am NOT a fan of "non-traditional" (gay) marriage, but it's far down my list of important matters the GOP should be focusing on. I believe homosexuals are born that way, created by God. I did not CHOOSE to be "straight." Nobody CHOOSES to be gay.
There are tens of millions of gays living as "married couples" (legally sanctioned or common law arrangements). Why should the GOP say their "marriage" can't be legal? If you have a "gay" child, could you tell him/her that they're a second-class citizen, and can't be married? Would you reject or disown your gay child? If you had the legislative power to prevent your gay child from marrying, would you?
What's the worst thing if gays can marry? Does it diminish your marriage, or mine? Should I think less of you or others if they're simply "co-habitating" and have not sealed the deal with a legal document? Does a government-sanctioned "Certificate of Marriage" make a "traditional" couple better than a gay couple, who can't marry in Michigan?
In other words, I'm asking how we VALUE marriage. I wish more heterosexual couples committed thru marriage, as I know marriage helps provide a good foundation for children, as well as stabilize society. Would a married gay couple not also be better than an unmarried, co-habitating gay couple?
Should one "hate" those who are gay, simply because God made them that way? There are great people in the KGOP who happen to be gay, and I value them, as patriots and friends.
... The development of my view on "gay marriage" occurred much like my view on the death penalty. Like most conservatives, I used to be "pro life" and also "pro death penalty". Those are the GOP "mainstream" positions (just as "traditional" marriage). But, I was troubled with the apparent hypocrisy. If killing an unborn child of God is wrong, isn't killing an adult child of God also wrong? I'm all for a true "life sentence" for a murderer. Let him rot in prison, but killing him is wrong. If I support a marriage commitment for a traditional couple, why not for a loving gay couple?
I'm a Conservative (perhaps slightly to the left of some on the "far right"). Despite opinion polls, and Roe vs. Wade, which support abortion rights, I will not waiver in my "pro life" beliefs, as abortion is killing a human being. There's no "gray area" about murder. No compromise. (Read the gory details of abortionist Kermit Gosling's current murder trial, if you want to know the truth about abortion). But, whether two gays can be married in some states is way down my list of concerns. Sort of a "gray area" I'm willing to accept, as a loving and compassionate person -- even toward those whose "lifestyle" concerns me.

After their stinging defeat in the recent presidential election, many Republicans are taking stock of when went wrong, why their appeal to young women. minorities and gays suffered. Some are reconsidering their views and political positions on social issues, including marriage and gay rights. Republicans are not monolithic in their views, and most are certainly not as they are often portrayed by political opponents, or in the media (which they believe has a strong liberal bias)
... Not too many years ago, blacks and whites could not marry. Times have changed; a majority of Americans believe denying gays the ability to marry is indefensible, under the principles of equality for all.
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said the RNC will not "change its principles" in opposing gay marriage. I love the principles of the GOP, including smaller government, fiscal restraint, individual liberty and equality for all under the rule of law. I believe the defining "principle" in the RNC and GOP position on marriage should be "equality" for everyone, as our Founding Documents clearly indicated. I don't see how the gender of each person in a marriage relates to the principle of equality.
This column was written by Julie Mack for Mlive/Kalamazoo Gazette. Contact her atjmack1@mlive.com 

Comments