College Republicans at Ivies Support Gay Marriage
Is this a sign of young libertarians taking over the GOP or progressives taking over the College Republicans?
Amelia Evrigenis of the College Fix reports.
Ivy League College Republicans Back Same-Sex Marriage
College Republican presidents at two Ivy League schools recently threw their support behind same-sex marriage, a sign of a growing trend among campus Republicans across the nation.
After a statement supporting gay marriage circulated among campus Republican and Democrat groups at all eight Ivy League schools, it was signed by the presidents of the College Republicans at the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University.
At Princeton University, its College Republicans president publicly supports gay marriage, but did not sign the statement out of respect for his group’s other officers, who had mixed feelings, he said.
The statement reads: “We, the Presidents of College Democrats and College Republicans chapters, stand united to affirm the right of all Americans to marry the person they love, regardless of gender. We challenge our nation’s leaders to join us in defense of marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples.”
It was signed by Democrat student presidents at all the Ivy League schools.
The president of Columbia University College Republicans, senior Tyler Trumbach, told his campus newspaper the support was long overdue.
“Personally, I think we should have done this years ago,” Trumbach said to The Daily Spectator. “It’s important for us to do this now to let people know that not all Republicans agree with the mainstream Republican party—especially young Republicans don’t all agree with that message.”
Comments
Do Libertarians believe The State has the authority to re-define meaning?
Case in point; Gay Marriage isn’t about love it is about giving The State the authority to re-define the meaning of Marriage. Marriage, by its existence, is defined as a union of the egg and the sperm. Further; since Love is subjective and is it a not definition then Marriage cannot be defined by the word Love.
Ironically, there was a time-back in my day- when college students believed that The State had the authority to define the meaning of life as “just a clump of cells” which then gave authority to The State to grant any woman the right to full ownership of another human inside her womb which then lead to her right to choose to extinguish that human being.
55 million+ dead babies later college students have seen the science, that indeed a baby in the womb is a human being rather than just a clump of cells and today now believe that a baby in the womb is an individual who has the right to life.
How can Libertarianism call for government to keep out of an individual’s life while at the same time support issues which demand The State become involved in the rights of the Individual?
Careful where you tread Libertarians because your ideology tends to tread upon meaning. And as a great American patriot said “Don’t tread on Me(aning)”