In practically the same breath earlier this week, Former Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan upheld his belief that marriage should remain between a man and a woman but admitted that he would support same-sex couples adopting. So it’s okay for same-sex couples to have children but not be considered a committed couple in the eyes of the law? <confused> What am I missing? If you were so conservatively stuck on marriage being defined by only a man and a woman, is the family unit not so sacred that you’d allow it to be far more liberally defined?
In the run-up to the elections, I brought up how the candidates might have supported or hindered issues relating to infertility. There wasn’t a lot to go on, since infertility doesn’t exactly have the same lobbying power as, say, gun control. But there had been questions about Romney and Ryan both having a softer stance toward infertilites than some of their other GOP competitors, and perhaps they had to swing further to the right than they wanted to maintain solid Republican base and Tea Party support. Without being in the spotlight, maybe now they feel more secure in admitting how they truly would vote…
Or maybe the Republican party is warming up to being less conservative with family values in an effort to win votes… Sheesh, all they’d have to do is support gay marriage before the Democrats do and the line between Democrat and Republican would have to be redefined entirely.
Either way, I’m all for living in a country that is more inclined to embrace alternative lifestyles, including alternative journeys to parenthood. Kudos to you, Paul Ryan, in all your P90X glory.