By Ryan Miner
I don’t agree with Amie Hoeber on every issue. She supports the Patriot Act; I don’t – and for good reason. Her position on Edward Snowden is definitively opposite of my own. And she is not as libertarian as I am on some issues. But that’s okay. Adults have the ability to disagree on issues and still accept one another as human beings. Apparently Facebook debates have a counter effect.
I’ve watched every CD-6 candidate from a birds-eye view during each of the congressional debates within the last three months. Hoeber, in particular, has struck me as a practical Republican. No, that’s not the same as being a “RINO.” Practical or pragmatic Republicans typically want to go to Congress to accomplish something tangible – whether that means working with Democrats, Republicans, or God forbid, both parties!
It’s no doubt that Hoeber is an impressive candidate with an indomitable and expansive grasp on public policy. I’ve discerned that Hoeber doesn’t always follow the typical vanilla Republican Party line that candidates are told they must follow if they endeavor to be elected.
Hoeber should be commended for taking a libertarian approach to many of the issues. After all, her job in Congress (if elected) will be to protect our constitutional liberties, including keeping government the hell out of places it doesn’t belong – like the marriage business.
Last evening, during the Poolesville Republican CD-6 debate, Hoeber was asked the following question:
How do you feel about same-sex marriage and/or civil unions, otherwise known as marriage equality? For or against?
Hoeber’s response was this:
“I do not believe that we should discriminate against anyone. I believe that the government does not belong in private lives. I will quote Paul Ryan on this, who says that ‘the government has no business micromanaging people’s lives.’ I think it is up to people to pick their own partners however they wish to do it.”
I didn’t applaud Hoeber’s response at the time because it would have been inappropriate to do so, but I wanted to clap. I think a golf clap would have sufficed.
Hoeber took a tough position, a constitutional position that places liberty front and center. Why should our government be tasked with determining who should and should not be married? Hoeber’s position may conflict with some social conservatives who still believe that government should be regulating relationships between two consenting adults. Oh well. The Republican Party is changing – for the better.
Some of the hardcore social cons may even vote against Hoeber in the primary because she took a tough stance on same-sex marriage. And this article could certainly damage Hoeber among some of the social conservatives. Or whenever I say something even remotely nice about Hoeber and her campaign, some of her opponents (and my political detractors) rush to point fingers, exclaiming “Ryan Miner is in the tank for Hoeber. OMG! WAHHHHHHHHHHH!” Nope, not in the tank for any candidate.
I’m in the tank for a constitutional government. I’m in the tank for candidates who support liberty. I am in the tank for getting government out of our lives, wallets, and bedrooms. If this article somehow hurts Hoeber’s candidacy, well, … she stood up for liberty in a courageous way. We want our elected officials and candidates to take tough stances. What I hate more than pandering… political expediency.
Hoeber’s response to the same-sex marriage question demonstrated that she understands what constitutional governance is all about. Her response to the same-sex marriage question not only shows her understanding of the constitution but it shows that Republicans – Republicans who believe in the principles of liberty – will no longer stand idly by while government encroaches on private relationships between two consenting adults.
Senator Rand Paul said during the first Republican presidential debate in Cleveland:
“I don’t want my marriage or my guns registered in Washington.”
In case you go back and watch the video of the debate, I was the guy who could be heard yelling, “YEAH!” the loudest in the Quicken Loans Arena after Rand Paul spoke.
When did it become a Republican platform to use government to uphold only certain marriage contracts over others? There is nothing Republican or conservative about denying a contract to one person over another, based on sexuality. How could we have ever gotten to the point to believe it was actually okay to deny a marriage license to a same-sex couple? We’ve come a long way.
The Republican Party is changing for the better. With leaders like Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, Rand Paul, Ben Sasse, Mike Lee and many others, we have an opportunity to truly become the political party of limited, constitutional government.
Last evening, Amie Hoeber made me proud to call myself a Republican.