The Republican Case for Gay Marriage
by Maura Flynn“I am a little to the right of Rush Limbaugh. I’m so conservative that I approve of San Francisco City Hall marriages, adoption by same-sex couples, and New Hampshire’s recently ordained Episcopal bishop. Gays want to get married, have children, and go to church. Next they’ll be advocating school vouchers, boycotting HBO, and voting Republican.” — P.J. O’Rourke, The Atlantic, July/August 2004
Thanks to Dave Konig for addressing the topic of gay marriage here on Big Hollywood the other day. As he pointed out, the issue itself might not cause most to lose sleep, come what may. But perhaps it should.
As a nation we’re at a crossroads, no question. Our banking industry scrambles to escape quasi-nationalization, our auto industry is in the process of being nationalized, and we have instituted, of all things, a Car Czar (note: it took Russia roughly 300 years to stack up so many czars). If that isn’t bad enough, nationalized health care is on the table again.
So as the Republic devolves and those with the means contemplate hightailing it to the Caymans, it’s probably time to ask ourselves what it is to be “conservative.”
One need only read the comments on this site to know that there are two fundamental schools of thought here. Some of us believe that to be conservative is to defend freedom, preserve individual liberty, and keep government small. Others believe that being conservative is about electing a government that will defend and enforce “traditional” values.
For our purposes here, a list of those values isn’t relevant. But if you place yourself in this camp, consider whether you truly want a government that will enforce your personal values at gunpoint (this is what all laws effectively do). And if you surrender such power to the government — power to defend not your life or your property, mind you, but your values — can you live with the consequences when your officials are no longer in power and you are staring down the business end of that barrel? Could you live with mandatory government schooling, for instance? (I could not). When you find yourself in a minority, as everyone does at some point, what protections do you imagine that you will have, other than our Constitution? One of the beauties of that document is that no citizen can undermine it without eventually putting his own interests in peril.
In the context of this debate, it is impossible to overemphasize that this is the same inspired, carefully considered document that protects the religious freedom we hold dear.
Looked at from this perspective, gay marriage isn’t a complex issue. Science aside, one needn’t believe that homosexuality is moral in order to understand that nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government the right to regulate marriage.
The Republican Party has made a huge mistake in advocating a kind of Cafeteria Constitutionalism. (I’ll take some guns, no helmet laws, please, a free market, and…yuck, hold the gay marriage!). One can’t legitimately invoke the Constitution to oppose federally mandated sex education, and then use the federal government to impose school prayer. Leave that fair-weather-federalism to the Left.
It’s not a state secret that the Democrat Party has become little more than a loose coalition of special interest groups with few or no coherent philosophical underpinnings. It’s also apparent that the Republicans are equally lost philosophically and couldn’t even manage to nominate a presidential candidate with the fiscal good sense to oppose corporate bailouts. Now here we are: face to face with an opportunity to take stock, recalibrate, and decide what we want from our political leaders.
Me, I implore the Republicans to become — once and for all — the party of freedom. The true moral highground is there to seize. Our Constitution was created as a shield against government encroachment on our personal lives. Conservatives should be the last people who would dare turn this document into a weapon.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
292 Comments
not this garbage again
Not garbage. All Men are Created Equal. Pure. Simple. Would we deny the person with Downs Syndrome the choice to marry? How about interracial marriage- bad idea? Of course in a perfect country, the government would not get to decide who gets married to whom. We're not perfect, but still better than most (if not all).
there is no "once and for all" as long as we have libbies who hate us…
This is some very facile thinking on the author's part. The "government" has been involved in marriage since the old country. Any old country. It's been a part of this country, at the very least as a contractual matter, since its founding. As for whether or not we want the government to be involved in enforcing our values… geez, I can't believe I even have to make this point. All laws are value laws. Even if we discount the ones involving property and personal injury, what about laws that prohibit sex with minors?
Seriously. Go back, do some thinking, and re-write this blog. There is a case for gay marriage from a conservative (mostly libertarian) perspective. This wasn't it.
I could support gay marriage if I wouldn't get stoned by leftists for saying, "Actually, I think homosexuality might be abnormal…" Not that I would say that to a gay person – that would be rude! But the fact that we can't even debate it renders me a bit unsympathetic to the gay marriage cause. Am I being petty? Maybe. But maybe, if it's left up to the states and to the VOTERS, the gay marriage activists will have to make a compromise, such as, "Okay, if you guys all agree to vote for legalizing gay marriage, we promise not to teach your kids that it's totally normal or accuse you of killing Matthew Shepard."
this is such a difficult arguement. As a religious person I believe everyone should behave the way I think God wants them to. I understand that there are multiple religious paths.
I also believe that man has free agency to choose how to live their lives.
I would not want some one to impose a different morality on me, so I really appreciate the freedom to worship how, where or what I may.
Some things are so horrendous that they should be illegal. Some things I think should be illegal that aren't, and that is a good thing, because of our personal freedom to choose how to live our lives.
So where does our obligation to help people lead good moral lives end and our right to live the life we want to begin?
I tend to take the libertarian view of leaving people alone. It may be painful to see people make choices that are abhorant to me. But that is freedom. People will do things I don't agree with. But i need to realize that this is what makes America great. I have the freedom to pursue happiness. And that my happiness may not be yours.
But I just can't bring myself to do it for gay marriage. If some one is gay, fine. If they act out those passions, that is their choice. Gay marriage is not marriage. There are ways to achieve the same benefits without destroying the basic foundation of society.Call me a hypocrite if you want, I've been called worse by better.
"Others believe that being conservative is about electing a government that will defend and enforce “traditional” values."
Why, please tell, cant we be both Defenders of Individual Liberty and supporters of Certain traditional values.
In fact, if one were to overemphasize one side of this over the other, we would lean towards either Dictatorship or Anarchy (Take your pick) both of which are Terrible. If we argue in support of Behavior we deem "Reprehensible" merely because we think Humans should be absolutely Free, we might as well support Abortion, Honor Killings, Murder. And such Morale Anarchy leads one place, Revulsion, and then Tyranny.
If conservatives embrace one side of their own beliefs over another, they are not conservatives. Besides, it simply isn't practical.
It is not the message of Conservatism, it is the marketing.
Also, when did conservatives ever use the FEDERAL government to "impose school prayer"?
Apparently what seems to me to get lost in all the shuffle is the word freedom and natural law, which is something the Founding Fathers discussed alot before we declared our independance from England. One their biggest concerns was that the people, colonists, were not ready ready. They were so concerned about private and public virture. Ideals that really have not changed in 200 years. Are you asking that we go against natual law and virture to make out 'tent' bigger? When I heard Powell say that what came to my mind is a tent so big it collapses on itself.
I am, however, all for gov't getting out of marriage. Not covered in the Constitution, as it was origanlly intpreted at
all. Maybe what gays want are the secular benefits that 'marriage' affords. That would be the job of business'
to amend that on their own. If was so simple to fix they would be happy. What gays want is for me to condone their lifestyle by hijacking the word marriage, as if that would somehow force me to accept it as a truth. Sorry.
Geese, they've already hijacked 'gay' and rainbow', give me a break.
Oh good grief! What's next on Big Hollywood? "The Republican Case for Bailouts?" "The Republican Case for Global Warming Legislation?" "The Republican Case for Barack Obama?"
Hey, I got an idea. How about "The Republican Case for Sanity, Normalcy, and Defense of Western Civilization and Values?" You know, the things that got Republicans elected in the first place.
These posts are simply ridiculous. Look, I get that you don't mind gay marriage. That's a valid opinion and I would never try to stop you from expressing it or voting your conscience.
So why is it that when I do the same, it's wrong?
It's not a matter of 'rights'. It's not a matter of 'prejudice'. It's a matter of social norms. Marriage in the USA is what it is: it excludes polygamists, bigamists, ephebophiles, bestialists, ad nauseum (and no, I'm not equating any one to the other – they're all just groups who can't have their "love" made official by the US government). Through relativism you can say that all these exclusions are arbitrary, but there are many arguments for sanctioning one man / one woman marriages. And government recognition of a union is all about sanctioning it.
And please, please, stop with the tired attempts to relate the matter to interracial marriage. Interracial marriage was never systematically banned in this country; where it wasn't permitted, it was just a facet of racism. As a member of an interracial marriage I'm as tired of seeing this issue used for emotional weight as I imagine black people are of having 'gay rights' compared to their struggle for civil rights.
The status quo states that marriage, in the US, does not include homosexual unions. If enough people want the status quo to change they can make that happen through their Democratic voice. Having an opinion on it, one way or the other, is not wrong. It isn't even an issue that ostracizes Conservatives, as most people in the US (and, indeed, the world) believe gay marriage should not be allowed.
How long do we have to keep suffering this stuff? Conservatives don't need to stop believing in God (or not, as they see fit). They don't need to 'accept' abortion (or refute it, as they see fit). They don't need to unilaterally accept or reject gay marriage. Not only are most Conservatives in the majority on these matters, a true Conservative realizes that these are questions intended to be settled by the voice of the people.
A true Right Winger solution would be to get the government out of the marriage business. Leave to churches, mosques, shamans . . . it should have nothing to do with the government. Problem solved.
You just stated the whole problem with this argument. Even if you did support gay marriage, the minute you said "But I don't condone the lifestyle" you would still be labled a homophobe. I admit there is a lot of resistance to gay marriage on the conservative side, but the gay community isn't all that flexible on the issue either. I see too many in the gay community who want all or nothing!
There seems to be no middle ground. Maybe the problem is that some people can't seperate the marriage issue from the sexual preference issue. I don't know.
But it doesn't help the cause ( and this is what has particularly soured me on the issue) when you call gay marriage a civil rights issue or leaders of the gay community equate there struggle to the civil right movement (I think Not!)
Both sides still need to learn a lot, but in all honesty, I think the gay community needs to set there sights lower for now! Small steps…………………………..That's just me………………..
The proper role of government regarding marriage is to simply enforce contracts. However, what does the Obama admin think of contracts?
OK, so why not have the Republican party, join the Libertarian Party? We are called Conservatives for a reason.
"Others believe that being conservative is about electing a government that will defend and enforce “traditional” values."
Uh… where have you seen this? If anyone registered Republican actually believed this there would be NO Republican party. This political speak is the sort of thing left wing Republicans spout to try and divide the party from 'conservative Christians' = because it's just downright BAD POLITICS to actually LIVE your religion! It's more acceptable to the GOP to LIVE your POLITICS. Sorry, that doesn't cut it with most people who call themselves 'conservatives' even if they don't call themselves "Republican" – which they are doing less and less of these days thanks to politically charged divisive speak such as mentioned above.
Nice try though.
See, that's the rub. One of them anyway. Marriage is primarily a contract. Government is the only means to enforce that (or any) contract. So government is always going to have it's say, which means government is always going to be involved in the marriage business.
Let the states decide.Oh by the way every time it has been put to a vote gay marriage loses.Federalism is good.
If the homosexuals pushing for gay marriage were sincerely concerned about what they proclaim then they would accept civil unions. But they don't because it's not about marriage, it's about govt sanctioning their behavior and diminishing marriage as its been known for thousands of years.
The notion that two people of the same gender can marry is ludicrous; the fact that it hurts some homosexuals feelings is irrelevant.
I'm in the party of "get government out of marriage altogether." Marriage is only between man, woman and God. It is impossible for gay people to be married, but they clearly should not have less rights than married people. I realize the societal significance thousands of years have proven about the importance of marriage, but regulating it for only a certain section of people is not within our constitutional powers, despite separation of church and state being bunk, it does hold true for this situation. Plus, it will piss off the terrorists even more!
It's liberal judges who are enforcing their idea of marriage. Conservative Republicans merely campaign against propositions to allow it – nobody's "enforcing" the prohibition on gay marriage. If a state wants to change its definition it can.
You ignore history – there is NO historical case for gay marriage. A better historical case can be made for child marriage, polygamy, and incestual relations.
Was it Burke that said something to the effect that tradition is entitled to a just presumption of validity.
It's up to those who would radically change history to justify themselves NOT for those who wish to conserve things. The civil rights and women's suffrage movements were about making the argument – and, the people bought it.
That doesn't mean that people have to buy the gay marriage argument. YOU are saying those who would advocate such radical change don't even have to make the argument – those who fight to preserve the existing social order should just stop preserving.
The height of arrogance, narcissism and a profound misunderstanding of how our government works.
There are legitimate grounds for divorce, but most jurisdictions have made divorce so easy to acquire that it came to be doable on a whim. And when it became possible for divorce to be had on a whim, marriage seemed no great risk either. Together, the effect has been to "cheapen" marriage. Many even choose to omit any reference to eternity from their vows…
In the wake of states issuing licenses for gays to marry, individuals in triad relationships have begun to lobby for the right to marry – the grounds being that if we need be flexible about the words "man" and "woman" in the phrase "one man and one woman", then who is to say that we should hold firm on the word "one"?
And so on until the word "marriage" has no viable meaning at all any more?
(For the record, I stand in favor of allowing civil unions. Not "marriage".)
This may be the solution of a true "right winger", but in no way resembles our Founders' hopes and dreams for their newfound country.
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." John Adams
Maybe we no longer deserve this great country of ours. It presupposes a civic morality, a personal accountability to "Nature's God" which we seem to have abandonned.
This, like all other moral matters, is one best left to the states. If New York wants gay marriage and abortions, they can have them. Bully for them. However, they shouldn't impose their values (or lack thereof) on the rest of us. If a gay person in a red state wants to get married, they can go to a blue state and do so. If we don't let the states have that power, then why have the federalist system at all.
Incidentally, I'm against the government getting involved in marriage at all. Instead, everyone should be issued civil unions, regardless of sexuality, and granted all the legal rights that traditionally come with marriage. Only the church should be allowed to marry anybody, and they should be able to refuse homosexuals a marriage ceremony if it goes against the church's teachings without having to fear getting sued.
FYI Gay marriage is now legal in my home state of New Hampshire. Gov. Lynch wouldn't have signed the bill unless there were protections preventing compulsory participation by churches or individuals. Both groups now have full rights under the law. That is America, IMHO. Full rights and peaceful coexistence.
And yes, even after gay marriage in CA (and it will happen eventually), there will still be the Perez Hiltons and other libtards whining like the woman who has a Virginia ham under her arm, complaining she ain't got no bread. Even as a gay marriage 'tolerator' I will still slam those idiots without mercy, as I do now. They're giving gays a bad name.
Look, people, there are a lot of things in America today we may not like. Abortion, the explosion in online porn, whatever. But what makes America great is that we can coexist with that we dislike without going jihadi on it. You may not like gay marriage, but society is evolving on this issue whether you like it or not. Though many still oppose it, 57% of young voters support it. Is opposing gay marriage as a party worth continuing to alienate the future electoral majority in America?
That is not political opportunism. That is reality, one even Dick Cheney has now conceded. One hack scribe's humble opinion. You are free to slam me now. The Bar is Open.
I do agree it is one of the historical questions of out time but
I don't agree that as a conservative who defends traditional values that I am referring simply to preserving "manners." As long a women and children are impacted most by irresponsible biological fathers marriage has a very special-I say-unique-place in our society.
So don't plan on counting me in.
My only question is this: After gay marriage, what next? Can anyone possibly imagine that, having won on this point, the gay lobby will simply fold its tent, say "Thanks ever so much" and retire to a quiet life of domestic bliss? No, I will predict what will happen. Gay marriage will become a reality within 3 years. Then the lawsuits will begin. Any religious denomination that refuses to marry gays will be threatened with loss of their tax-exempt status, with the full weight of the Federal government behind the threat. Any location, public or private, that refuses gay ceremonies will similarly be brought to heel with lawsuits and bad press.
Ten years ago, almost nobody would have imagined gay marriage being forced on the American people. Can we really imagine that, having won on such an enormous point, the gay community will now be satiated? Do we really imagine that we can make a hungry wolf go away from our door by feeding him whenever he growls?
This is a good point. The libs will never stop. They will just move on to the next critically important civil right, no matter how ludicrous such rights are. Plural marriage is already around the corner, the ACLU has said it is ready to fight for it. Next it will be the rights of children to be free of their parent's will, or the right of dogs to get out of the back yard without their owner's consent. You know… just a bunch of rights that do not now exist and have never existed. As long as it tweaks the religious in this country, why, they'll be all for it, and will start crying like babies and protesting when they hit any resistance.
You say it's ridiculous, and you're right, but who seriously thought gay marriage wasn't ludicrous 20 years ago?
When I was reading the comments on Konig's article, the fear that legalizing gay marriage would lead to the imposition of the homosexual agenda on people who are morally or religiously opposed to it was far more prevalent than those who went "ew! Gays are nasty!"
I think the very fanaticism of the homosexual lobby is what makes social conservatives so strenuously opposed to giving even an inch on this matter. It's not the inch we're concerned about…it's the following mile!
Social conservatives are aware that gay marriage is just the foot in the door. If we legalize gay marriage, churches & social groups may be forced to accommodate them (we have a nanny state gov't – do you really think they won't?), criticizing their behavior would be like criticizing anyone without lily-white skin (RACIST!) and children will learn safe gay-sex methods in grade school or earlier no matter what the parents want. Then, will we have to legalize dual marriages for bi-sexuals? How long will it take NAMBLA to start crowing for recognition? Well, more than they already are.
My problem isn't the legal recognition of the relationship of two guys who like having sex. My problem is giving an already viciously-anti freedom of thought/speech/religion movement any more leverage than they already have when I'm virtually positive the government doesn't give a tear about my right to dissent!
I was wondering about that too. I though school prayer was a tradition and that students were allowed to opt-out. I'm relatively sure the government was the ones who actively BANNED prayer in school, even if the student chose to do so themselves. But I could be wrong. Anyone else?
won't polygamy be close behind? and if it is it it a bad thing?
Agreed, swampfaye. I call bull—t. We're conservatives because we believe in "conserving" things.
News flash: All law — as organized force restricting or promoting how a society acts within and upon itself — is enforced morality. Which is why neither pure libertarianism nor neo-anarchy (and what's the difference, really?) will ever work.
The bad news? True, workable freedom — living within a framework of CONSISTENT laws — can only exist for people with a relatively unified mindset. That happens best at the core level of a common faith. And with most Americans considering themselves moral free agents more and more with each passing decade… Yeah, we're screwed.
Ms Flynn makes a key mistake here- confusing conservatism with libertarianism. Conservatives have a set core of principles; and they are pretty steadfast. Marriage is a 4,000 year old covenant to civilize men, protect women, and give children a stable environment with proper role models so they can flourish.
Just because as sinners that fall short of what He expects of us doesn't mean you throw the system away.
Gay marriage doesn't fit any of the above criteria, and should not be given the imprimatur of the government.
Clear enough?
Maura – I can't believe your spinelessness. Your article is (supposedly) about 'supporting' gay marrige – but you don't do that. You don't come out and say you're for it, nor do you give any moral, valid or ethical reasons as to why you support it (which you don't). Instead, you sidestep the whole issue of what YOU think and instead throw it in OUR face that we should support it because – gosh, darn, the government shouldn't be so big. What a cop out. Come on, if you haven't got the cojones to stand up for something, than at least admit it. Quit throwing it in our lap to deal with. As it stands, your 'support' sounds like nothing so much as fawning to the pro-gay marriage movement so they'll like you, they'll really like you.
Not entirely.
I'd rather see adopted children living with two loving dads (or moms), than see the many, many abused children born of a father and a mother.
And what exactly is your definition of conservatism?
I just find it a little ironic that one of the advertisers at the bottom of the page is entitled "Colon Cleansers"…product placement is perfect! Folks the "republican position" on Homo marriage is simple…Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman…man and man doesnt fit that definition and neither does woman to woman…its like saying a green dress can be called orange…it just doesnt make it so…so why dont all the cry baby sex perverts who find a mans anal orifice a nice place to park their privates..becasue they feel its right..i suppose pedophiles should have rights because they like sex with children..perversion is perversion… real simple. So just call it a peversion, me and my sexual partner have decided to go get officially perverted..then we can go have our orgy at Disneyworld.
and gay marriage will end child abuse?
birth parents are the only abysers?
Hey Jas, care to exercise your brain and give us some cogent thoughts, or does the enormity of the task simply overwhelm you?
The problem with this article is that you're treating the "allow gay marriage" position as if it is somehow values-neutral. The government has two options here: allow gay marriage, or continue to ban gay marriage. Part of the population values traditional marriage, and wants the government to preserve it. Another part of the population values gay marriage, and wants the government to allow it. The government must decide which set of values to enforce, there is no values-neutral option.
The entire purpose of government in its law enforcement aspect is to pick a set of values and enforce them. Murder is illegal because the values of the nation say it is wrong. Fraud is illegal because the values of the country say it is wrong. All laws are based on values.
If you want to have a discussion about which values are better, or which values the government should be enforcing, then by all means, do so. We can debate whether the value of "smaller government" trumps the value of "traditional marriage". But please don't pretend that government is some kind of neutral entity that adjudicates between people of different values. Such a creature has never existed, and is indeed logically impossible.
Do you know how to read? or is it all or nothing? Reread the post to which I was replying- then unbunch your knickers.
You just said something that the zealots on the pro gay marriage side do not understand. It is not necessarily the legalization of a marriage between two people of the same sex that people on our side oppose. It is, paraphrasing your thoughts, "the fear of what else will follow". I hate this term, but "It is a slippery slope". How far is too far, and how do you know when you've gotten there?
I believe you are absolutely correct about the viscious nature of some in the gay movement. Legalized gay marriage isn't all they want. You will have to condone thier lifestyle and accept everything about them or you will still be a homophobe. They have to understand that this will never happen. Someone may say,"Oh yes I condone your lifestyle", but be thinking just the opposite. It will always be this way as long as there is free thought.
Far and away one of the best posts I've seen. Especially since it does an excellent job of displaying the hypocrisy of the party that wraps itself so tightly with the constitution and the idea of freedom.
that is a good question. doesn't conservatism contain elements of libertarianism? and vice versa?
i think it is important that the movement define itself.
yeah, and we'd rather see a lot of things too- gay adoption is a canard; there are only a few thousand of them in the US, a statistical zero… sure, there are great gay couples, loving and all that. As we said, humans are weak and sinners. Child abuse is not a reason to radically change a system that has worked pretty well for millenia… domestic partherships are fine, and we are not categorically opposed to gay adoption- but marriage is a unique covenant that the state approves of for very obviious reasons. To dilute that with gay marriage opens the door for polygamy- absolutely- and other less desirable outcomes.
Wise up…
Fair question. Libertarian, with a good dose of Traditional family values, a strong and forward foreign policy. Some would add Christian values, although I am not of that persuasion I see nothing wrong with the concept.
Sure.
30 out of 30 states who put the issue to voters said NO to gay "marriage." The people have spoken. For someone to still be talking like this on a conservative blog is well …"garbage."
Let's play again vainamoinen, but then again, I don't want to overwhelm you with cogent thoughts and facts.
Yes….by all means let's reward those who've made a point of using extortion and intimidation tactics against both liberal and conservative Christians alike and constantly refer to them as homophobes, bigots and hatemongers and who seem to delight in holding L.A. drivers captive as they march in round after round of rush hour protests chanting like petulant little children.
Great idea.
really? you throw out some nonsense like that then accuse me of being to stupid to understand? Typical.
"In the wake of states issuing licenses for gays to marry, individuals in triad relationships have begun to lobby for the right to marry – the grounds being that if we need be flexible about the words "man" and "woman" in the phrase "one man and one woman", then who is to say that we should hold firm on the word "one"?"
You are so right!
I am saying this twice in a day. "It is a slippery slope". I hate that friggin' phrase but it describes the whole argument against gay marriage. When and where does it stop? Two men. two women, two men and one woman, a ham sandwich, a goat and a man!
At the end of days all you will have left is 10 billion divorce lawyers, and one very confused goat…………….
Leaving aside the fact that I've already deal with the conservative case against gay marriage in comments on this site before, the entire premise of this blog post is wrong. It assumes that gay marriage is a WINNING position. Why didn't Prop 8 teach you anything? In freaking California–a liberal bastion if ever there was one–Prop 8 *WON*.
Screwing the social conservatives is exactly how you'll get the Republican Party to never win another election ever.
I'm sorry, Maura, but you've been sold a bill of goods by liberals who pretend that gay marriage is an unstoppable force and that if we don't move to the left we're gonna lose. These are your OPPONENTS giving you strategy advice. And you don't think there's anything suspicious about that?
Wow.
Millennia of women considered as chattel, child abuse, and now divorce rates over 50 per cent… that's some unique covenant!
Typical of what? I don't believe we've met.
That's like saying it's better to be shot in the knee than shot in the head. Trivially true, but it's better to ensure That's like saying it's better to be shot in the knee than shot in the head. Trivially true, but it's better to ensure no one gets shot at all.
Gay adoption is worse than gay marriage because it assumes that men and women are identical entities that can be swapped out, when the fact of the matter is that men and women are radically different, and children do best when they get traits from *BOTH*.
yeah we have.
and there you go again, throwing the conversation in a different direction rather than addressing the topic.
really, I'm bored.
you didn't pay much attention to what we said- too busy regurgitating pro gay talking points… divorce rates are not over 50%, you are wrong there, and last we checked the 'chattel' thing is either 19th century or Islamic. Child abuse is not a reason for gay marriage! Just because you are a heathen doesn't mean the other 80% of the US is…
ok so you have called yourself a conservative in the past, but you also seem to have some hostility. Help me understand where you are comming from.
A question for the legal-eagles; Is there any provision for proving "gay-ness" in a same-sex marriage?
Why is it referred to as "gay marriage" (legally speaking)? Is there some kind of "I declare I'm gay" provision one must sign?
If it's a gov't-only "transaction", then isn't it just an agreement between two individuals to commit to each other?
I presume that 2 people could enter into it to get some kind of benefits or whatever. Not saying it's evil or anything, just wondering. After that precedent is set, why limit it to 2? It's just a gov't contract for commitment, after all.
Big picture stuff: what is marriage designed for in a country? Isn't it to set up the population to create offspring and keep a culture from withering away (sort of like Europe is doing now)?
Too many questions for one post?
Again; these are questions, not some hidden comments. I need clarification!
It is sad enough that there are fatherless families. But why design fatherless families? This new Big Hollywood writer sounds like a RINO or a far-left Dem.
Why does the “gay marriage” debate always focus on adults?
We all know that gay marriages will promote fatherless families – because lesbians “marry more.” This will harm children. Even the best mothers cannot make good fathers.
You are exactly right. Churches may not only lose their tax exempt status, but in times to come, Pastors may also be sued or even arrested for "hate speech." How? Just by having to explain why they won't marry the "couple," based on Biblical grounds. I believe it's already that way in Canada and several European countries (someone correct me if I'm wrong about that).
Every boy has a right to a father. To design fatherless families is state-sanctioned socialism.
How about this: When the number of fatherless boys in jails goes down from say, 90% to 10% I’ll reconsider my views.
Fatherlessness is a socialistic tool, period. I’m tired of paying taxes for adults-only libertarian rights.
It is the party that protects the weak and innocent. it is a country that is supposed to protect the weak and innocent. It is a civilization that is supposed to protect the weak and innocent.
Yes, and I'd love to see a brief profile to "know where you are coming from." Consider this a polite invitation to explain yourself.
One of the main arguments against gay marriage here seems to be that we would be caving in to intimidation and betraying our principles as conservatives. Personally, I don't see how two gays getting married makes a church-sanctioned man-woman marriage any less sacrosanct.
An extreme analogy to make my point: does allowing Goth cults, Wiccans, or idol and devil worshipers in America make the Catholic Church, or any church for that matter, any less holy or sacrosanct?
I too despise the intimidation and moronic statements by Tom Hanks, Perez Hilton and too many others. But I can also understand gays' desires to get married with all the legal protections thereof, as a CIVIL procedure. Marriage license only and NO compulsory church participation, as is the law now in my home state of NH.
As long as churches and individuals are protected from compulsory participation, as is now the case in NH, I have no problem with this. Doesn't matter anyway, it's the law there now. And leave polygamy and incest out of it. Those still remain illegal in all states that allow gay marriage. It's a single issue, not Pandora's Box.
The real question for conservatives here is, can you still hold true to your principles and coexist with gay marriage or not? And is allowing the freedom of gays to marry in line with conservative tenets of granting the greatest degrees of freedom possible to citizens in our great Republic or not?
How about two dogs and a cat. OK with that?
Nobody is denying anyone from living together. They are being denied the legal status of "MARRIED>"
Is that a tragedy? Biggest social problem we have? Apparently, Obamasan does not think so.
Hey, is the Messiah is OK with not allowing gay marriage, who are we to argue?
No one will ever convince me that deliberately creating fatherless families for “lesbian rights” is healthy.
A boy needs a father and a mother – not two mothers playing families.
I wasn't aware that 'marriage' was a Republican or Democrat issue. It is a legal issue and it is a religious issue and that makes it a cultural issue because a culture is partially defined by its laws and religious beliefs. The legal issues would seem to go away if couples entering into a 'uniting contract' were required to sign a contract. Personally, I believe after the contract is signed, sealed, and registered a ceremony is superfulous. Contracts are legally binding civil documents and should carry a civil designation, e.g., Contract of Civil Union or something equally as bureaucratic. "Marriage" is and should be recognized as a religious institution and as such, assuming the separation of church and state, the state should have no influence. For those churches that wish to issue 'Marriage Licenses" to whomever they please, more power to em without governmental interference. A 'marriage license' would not be considered a equal substitute for an Contract of Civil Union. Churches should not be in the business of issuing legally binding civil documents.
Fortunately, Maura Flynn is not a person of any influence.
Indeed! Specifically, the gay agenda of pushing young people to "accept" their homosexuality, not just consider it and maybe even think about why they might have these feelings (Why think? It's genetic!) but accept that they are gay, and definitely not straight at all, really annoys me. So does the idea that someone who may feel attracted to people of the same gender shouldn't (or can't really) prefer someone of the opposite gender (my liberal bisexual friends hate that one – they don't agree with me that heterosexuality is preferable, but whatevs). It seems like the being sensitive to gay people's feelings boat is sinking in a morass of its own illogicality. Until the pro-gay-marriage folks can allow me the freedom to say out loud, "Hey, this girl I know was straight until she was raped, then she started digging chicks… I wonder if homosexuality isn't, or isn't completely, genetic?" the "freedom" argument isn't going to do much for me.
Those silly liberals allowing black people to vote, then allowing women to vote. What's next, allowing animals to vote? lol idiot.
People like this writer who push gay marriage will NEVER get it: This is not about marriage at all — it's an all-out assault on Christian values. If homosexuals were interested in taking part in the same benefits as heterosexuals, they would accept civil unions.
Weren't civil unions granted to homosexuals in Connecticut? A short time later, the state supreme court ruled it was to be called "marriage." So, you see what's at work here.
Where gay marriage is accepted in Canada, they say Catholic churches don't have to recognize them, but the churches are being targeted by legislation. Like the eroding of gun rights, it won't happen over night, but eventually religious people will wake up and not recognize their church.
There have already been such lawsuits. A gay couple wanted to have a ceremony in an area owned by a Methodist church in New Jersey. Somehow it was considered a public space (not sure how, seeing as how a church owned it… but I don't know law, so anyway…) The church said no. I believe that the church no longer rents out the space to anyone because they wanted to stick to their principles. If you want to double check what I remember, it should be pretty easy to find info online. This happened in Ocean Grove, NJ.
Ok, Gay "marriage". Then why should government limit the number of spouses we can have? OK, so polygamy; then why should government limit WHAT we should marry? Why not just dissolve "marriage" altogether and offer everyone the same benefits no matter what their "arrangement?" Isn't that your definition of "freedom?" There are very good answers to these questions which, mysteriously, just never seem to come up.
Tell you what, I'll gladly take it in the rear if we can be spared any more useless posts on why gay marriage is such a "Republican" thing to do. Tell Meghan McCain to go get her strap-on.
Maura, I disagree with gay marriage because I agree with almost everything else you say. To recognize gay marriage is to create a tyranny of nonsense. A gay marriage is not a marriage, nor are gays forbidden from marrying people of the opposite sex. A gay marriage is the equivalent of having a straight person classify themselves as gay for the purpose of enjoying the protection of hate crimes laws or for me to claim maternity benefits because I'm a fat guy. As many people have said, it makes more sense for the government to recognize no marriage than to recognize gay marriage. The only way that the gay marriage definition would make sense is if the public voted for it, however when they did it was called unconstitutional by many. Even key gay figures agree that there should be no gay marriage. So when I'm anti gay marriage though I'm pro-gay people I take the same position as these truly brave gay figures.
If Big Hollywood is going to continue to push the gay marriage agenda on us, it would be nice if they could find someone who could make a positive case for it.
You want to ignore thousands and thousands of years of tradition? You want to claim that what was inconceivable ten years ago is now self-evident? Fine. Tell us why it's necessary. Tell us why, when there are no rights available to married couples that are not also available to homosexual couples, we should remake the basis of our society.
If the change is unnecessary, it is necessary to resist the change. No one is smart enough to foresee the consequences of such an upheaval. Not even Big Hollywood.
While at it, why not do away with how many people can be married to each other and the age of consent. Why should the government be involved with deciding these issues. There are other countries that allow multiple marriages as well as the marriage of children to adults. Sarcasm done.
I am for gay marriage, but the enigma that ensues is making sure churches are not compelled to perform a ceremony when they feel it is against their morals. These suits have happened in the past and that is what makes me even leery of voting for it.
Also, when you see hateful bastards like Perez Hilton grandstanding for a cause, that would make anyone think twice before voting for it.
I would not put gay marriage as a Republican thing, it's an individual thing to vote on based upon experience and principles. And the people have spoken numerous times.
We in the Republican Party should disband. That way, the Social Conservatives, The Liberitarians, The Hawks, and The Fiscal Conservatives can ally together as what they are when the need arises. Me? I'm a Social Conservative: I believe in a Moral Code (even when I am outside the bounds of the code). And yes, we do legislate morality on a daily basis. It IS the law.
Exactly the issue as I see it. I for one would be more willing to compromise if they'd be willing to compromise — but a majority of them are not.
This is exactly the point, and exactly the point Maura doesn't understand. I'm perfectly prepared to talk about civil unions and extending every single legal right married couples enjoy to "civilly united" homosexuals as well…every single one. What I am NOT prepared to talk about it is that such a civil union can in any way be called a "marriage."
No such thing as compromise on the left……….Only submission……………..
Maura: There is no "Republican case for gay marriage." Anybody who thinks there is can kiss my ass.
So as the Republic devolves and those with the means contemplate hightailing it to the Caymans
Who's stopping you?
Today on The View, there was a woman who had a so-called sex change operation and wanted to be billed as the first man to ever become pregnant and give birth to a baby. Well, who's kidding who here? That creature was a she and she became pregnant precisely and only because she was a she. I don't care if some scientist implanted a whole incubation lab in the groin of a male, it would not be a case of a male becoming pregnant.
Yet we are now ordered by the state to utter such lies as if we believe them. We're ORDERED to. At the end of a gun.
Something for you to think about, Maura, as you cede reality and control over your life to these totalitarian fools.
Conservativism is as libertarian as much as libertarianism is traditional – i.e. – classically liberal. When it comes into conflict is when modern libertarianism becomes anti-traditional, such as changing the meaning of a an entire institution and word to mean something it never has.
Very thought provoking. It is certainly a time for conservatives to regroup and examine what that designation means. In his great biography of Benjamin Disraeli, Robert Blake vividly describes how Disraeli forged a new idenity for British Conservatives out of the post-Peel Tory party. He asked the question "What will you conserve?" One thing that Disraeli realized was that the party did not need to "coserve" the disabilities imposed on it by it's opponents. Gay marriage is one of those disabilities. If one believes in federalism one has to also believe in the right of the states to define the bounds of marriage. The problem is a visceral one for conservatives. One simply hates to give in to the vicious bullying and self-righteous posturing of the pro-legalization forces. It is especailly offensive that gay marriage advocates have the nerve to compare this issue to the plight of ante-bellum slaves or Jews under the Nazi regime.
It was actually thrown out, eventually, because Republicans decided to win a civil war and amend the constitution.
The "true" "conservative" "solution" is to hide our "hatreds" behind our "bibles."
"Family vaules", that's the rub isn't it? Why would family values be a plank of a political party as opposed to a social idea?
To me, it's dangerous to legislate behavior that doesn't cause injury to another person. A plank in the platform of a political party implies legislation.
The first republican to run on clear conservative ideas: Weak federal government, strong state's rights, minimalist personal intervention, strong adherence to the constitution…
That person will win by a landslide like this country has never seen!
The problem with the nation as a whole accepting gay marriage as a right is what to do about those churches that forbid it as part of their religious teaching? Logically, they would be forced to perform gay marriages, because to refuse would be a violation of someone's rights and we can't have that.
Personally, I don't care. I believe that marriage is not just the union of two people in love, but to produce children, or at least be open to the conception of children. Gay marriages, by definition are not open to the conception of children, so for me personally that's a problem.
Churches who believe that too, who are forced by the government to peform these marriages will be having their civil rights violated – their right to practice their religion, they're religous freedom.
Don't anyone tell me that we can have gay marriage and religious freedom, because the two will be incompatible. I would bet ten years' salary, that should gay marriage be allowed throughout the land, that SOMEONE will start filing lawsuits because some church wouldn't marry them. Some couple is going to have their heart set on this Baptist/Catholic Church and they don't believe in it and are refusing, so call the lawyers!!
Heck, wedding photogs who won't photograph gay ceremonies are being sued, what's going to happen to the churches?
I am more than happy to oblige. I am a conservative who grudgingly votes Republican. I say grudgingly because I hope that some day, we'll get one in office who actually lives by the tenets of conservatism as I undertand them:
Weak federal government
Strong state government
Personal freedoms
Strict adherence to the constitution
The Republican party, in pandering to the far right, ignores their core principles.
Prostitution, drugs, gambling. The government has no right to interfere with any of these activities unless they directly injure (physically or fiscally) another citizen.
The most atrocious thing is, that the people who engage in these (extremely popular) behaviors do not enjoy the full protection under the law that other citizens do. The activities don't stop, they are just hidden, where the most vulnerable in society are taken advantage of.
That's just the beginning but I'm sure it's enough to give you a small window into my own unique soul.
"Some of us believe that to be conservative is to defend freedom, preserve individual liberty, and keep government small."
Sounds founding father-ish
"Others believe that being conservative is about electing a government that will defend and enforce “traditional” values."
Aren't we fighting people like that in a dry sandy place right now?
Why is the "far right" only the cultural right? What you want is libertarianism, an extreme form of right wingery itself – and actually to the right of cultural median conservatism.
Okay, one last time and I'm done. My home state of NH has it written into the new gay marriage law that churches and individuals who oppose gay marriage are prohibited from being compelled to participate. I have to live with that law there now. But since I do, the anti-compulsion provision works for me. That should be the model. All rights granted and preserved to all concerned.
Maybe I'm more of a Libertarian than a conservative now, but if gay marriage is going to be a reality in this country (as it already is in six states), I prefer it be done right as in NH. By representative government. No judicial activism. No coercion.
As with most moral matters in America I am willing to, and must, concede certain liberties in this life that I may find personally distateful, as I must now in NH. Let God sort 'em all out in the end. Fair enough?
So you're equating a people (us) who wants to keep two dudes from marrying with a people who would behead those same two dudes.
Perspective: It's not just for intelligent people anymore.
Then you agree with the Founding Fathers this is a State's Rights issue that the federal government should stay out of. Sounds good. Keep the federal government completely out of it, for or against, let the states do what they will. They could even remove the term "marriage" and call it something else, even do away with such if they choose, as long as the federal government, which has no responsibility concerning such unions specified in the Constitution, keeps their hands off.
Good thought.
May we presume you are allowed to vote?
I knew two women who were gay that had both lived their lives straight with no evidence of being unhappy. One was physically abused by a spouse, the other had her daughter raped by the spouse, then both "realized" they were actually gay and wound up together. I'm fine with gay marriage (to be honest, it's mostly a non-issue for me), but it's a little silly when people start saying sexuality is all about how you're born. It might be for some, but for many it's a choice that they make (for whatever reason). Maybe the discussion would be a little easier if everyone would be honest about where they're coming from.
That said, I agree with Maura. Republicans trying to make this the issue that defines the party is ridiculous. If we don't get spending under control and do something about terrorism, the last problem we'll be worried about is who is marrying whom.
Maura
I think you miss the point. Prop 8 definitively allowed for Civil Unions. The argument is only over the definition of marriage which will never be anything except between a man and a woman. This is because the only purpose for marriage is the propagation of the species. Every child should know their biological mother and father. This is the ideal that is pursued by marriage.
Defining a bonding between two members of the same sex is actually the more limiting argument. If the pair bonding of homosexual partners is defined as a marriage then they are not free to engage in a marriage with someone of the opposite sex in order to reproduce without dissolving the "gay" bond. Why should this be so?
What you advocate if strictly practiced would probably remove homosexuality from the gene pool in four to five generations and remove that part of our genome. As a social species genetic diversity helps us to survive so from a scientific standpoint this is a terrible thing.
You must be logged in to post a comment.