Meghan Is Taking Her Father’s Maverick Label Too Seriously

Cheif Maverick with young apprentice maverick in the background.

Cheif Maverick with young apprentice maverick in the background.

Meghan McCain is like the little engine that keeps on.   No, I don’t mean “the little engine that could”, that’s cliche.  Here is an example of a little engine that “keeps on”:  Imagine the most socially awkward person you know.  Now think about how that person constantly tries to get a laugh/simple acknowledgment from everyone they come in contact with.  No matter how many times they tell a joke, it would never be funny.  They should just give it, but they are persistant to the point that it becomes pitiful.  Does that not sum up Meghan McCain perfectly?  She is trying so hard to be a “maverick” and be the hip new face of the republican party that it’s verging on pitiful.  Her efforts to modernize and rhinofy the Republican party are all in vain, because, quite honestly, she has no political muscle.  Meaning, she’s not really convincing anyone except for a few readers of her blog and some college kids.

Her latest attempts at making the Republican party more congruous with what she thinks today’s values are include trying to warm conservatives up to the idea of gay marriage.  She has about as much luck doing that as I would trying to convince liberals that George Bush was a good president.  In her blog she states that:

If the Republican Party has any hope of gaining substantial support from a wider, younger base, we need to get past our anti-gay rhetoric. As you can image, the road for gay Republicans hasn’t been an easy one. Most find the words “homosexual” and “conservative” inherent contradictions, much the same way so many people can’t seem to reconcile fiscal conservatism and the bit-tent philosophy of freedom and justice for all.

Alright Meghan, while I think it’s great you are so passionate about your stance on the issues, a full party reform of the conservative stance on gay marriage is unrealistic.  The overwhelming majority (myself included) of conservatives live based on Christian values, and a negative view of homosexuality is certainly one of those values.   Having said that, and in Meghan’s defense, it’s also contradictory for a conservative Christian person to discriminate against a homomsexual person due to their “love interests”.  While I don’t condone homosexuality, in my opinion witholding their rites in any form is just like the racial discrimination of the 60s.  From there, it depends on whether you think marriage is an act of state or of the church.  I side with it being an institution of the church, and seeing as Christianity (among other religions) frown upon homosexuality, they should not be forced to perform a same-sex marriage.

They do look awfully similar.

Meghan Does look a lot like her father. I wonder which chromosome maverick is on?

Anyway, my own views aside, what Meghan is trying to do is unrealistic, to put it nicely.  At a time when the Republican party is going back to the conservative roots that brought us success under Reagan, she can’t preach her moderateness and expect much of a following.  I’m sure you’ll see Hannity (blah.) rip into this at some point this week, so be on the look out!  I’m sure we’ll hear more on this in the near future.

What do you think?  Do you think it’s realistic for the Republican party to become accepting of homosexual marriage?  Leave your comments below or e-mail us at Also, if you are having any trouble understanding what I’m trying to say, please ask me to clarify!  I have tendancy to go off on unconnected tangents, and I would hate for someone to be confused on my view on any matter.

For the full entry, click here.

Thanks for reading!



Filed under Gay Marriage, Megan McCain

10 responses to “Meghan Is Taking Her Father’s Maverick Label Too Seriously

  1. “I side with it being an institution of the church, and seeing as Christianity (among other religions) frown upon homosexuality, they should not be forced to perform a same-sex marriage.”

    Which is not what the issue is about. Churches aren’t being forced to perform same-sex marriage, nor will they ever be.

    In America, atheists can get married. No churches are forced to marry them, but they can still get married and have the title ‘marriage’ applied to their relationships. That puts marriage, as far as the government is concerned, on completely non-religious ground.

    • First off, thanks for stopping by the site and leaving a comment.

      I know that Churches will never be required to perform a same-sex marriage; however, if same-sex marriage is legal, how are they going to get technically “married” in a church if they turn them away? Marriage is an institution of the church, correct? This, to me, just opens up for more problems.

      I’m not exactly sure what your saying with that (I’m not being rude, I’m just not following), but if you mean what I think you do (That gays/lesbians that are “married” would have complete rights as normal couples), then I agree. As far as government goes, I don’t think there should be any differentiation between types of couples. It’s just actually getting them married that’s the hard part.

      As I’ve said before on this blog, legal issues surrounding things such as same-sex marriage are not my strong point (obviously). I have a very narrow scope of understanding on these issues, so anything you know that could help make it clearer is greatly appreciated.

      Thanks again for reading and commenting!


      • “how are they going to get technically “married” in a church if they turn them away?”

        I can go to any judge or justice of the peace and get married with some simple paperwork. No church needed.

        • Alright, that’s what I was clarifying. So when it all comes down to it, if you take out all the details I was wrong about (Haha) in the original post, I think we’re on the same page. Correct me if I’m wrong, though. Because like you, I don’t believe the government should discriminate against same-sex couples.

          Do I support same-sex marriage? No.
          Do I support equal rights for same-sex couples? Yes.

          Thanks for helping me out with this! Also, thanks for commenting and reading the blog. Hope to see you back.


  2. I wanted to thank you today for paying the Gay Community’s federal taxes.

    You will need to continue paying them until ALL are EQUAL in U.S. Law.

    [equality tax revolt]

  3. Pingback: What’s Everyone’s Beef With Meghan McCain? « The Conservative Journal

  4. Pingback: Month In Review: April 2009 « The Conservative Journal

  5. Kristin

    I’m slightly confused. You claimed that marriage is an act of the church, and not an act of the state. Does that mean Judaic, Islamic, Hindu and so on and so forth ceremonies aren’t legitimate marriages?! Ever hear of “Separation of Church and State?” I think this little Christian fraction of the Republican party should go forth and rip religion out of politics. It’s utterly boorish, irrelevant, and distasteful.

  6. Kristin

    Additionally, for your own information, marriage has been a sacrament of the church since 12th century.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s