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
Tips & Feedback
284 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.
It was actually thrown out, eventually, because Republicans decided to win a civil war and amend the constitution.
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.
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 miss the forest for the trees my friend.
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.
Actually, not that long ago, those were outlawed. LawHawk, are you reading this? Inter-racial was banned on the state level, not sure if it was repealed individually or by federal action. As for Down's Syndrome, there is normally a "mental fitness" criteria that may still cover that but not in a blanket sense.
So the government should not disallow close familial spouses? Does it count as parental consent for a father to allow his otherwise-underage daughter to marry him? Ah, such a brave new world you imagine.
Very well said!
Depends on the "traditional values." Some of the early colonies were downright fully libertarian by modern standards, others not so much. Offhand though I do not recall homosexuals being slaughtered, although early American history that I have read never mentioned them.
You think a traditional view of marriage is in the same forest as beheading homosexuals. Can we start a reductio ad terrorum rule on this site?
When are they going to fix the disappearing posts problem?
Not trying to be antagonistic (although, it would seem that's what I've done all evening), but does that mean that two heterosexuals who hate children should not be allowed to marry, either?
"not this garbage again"
Way to inspire intelligent discussion and debate with your thoughtful comment!
This is because the only purpose for marriage is the propagation of the species.
BS call. It has overwhelmingly been for forming an economic unit that preserved wealth, ostensibly for the benefit of descendants, which also served as a social unit for rearing any children. For the children if there are any, but for mutual benefits otherwise. To argue mere "propagation of the species" one can argue welfare is a better tool for that than marriage.
BTW I am waiting for the "gay gene" to finally be discovered. Then I might invest in whomever offers genetic screening for it as part of in vitro fertilization services, followed by the emerging technology that will remove it from an individual's genome. There will definitely be some profit in that business, to be sure.
The point of marraige is to ensure that a child knows the biological father and mother from which he or she was spawned. This would help the child from doing things like inadveratantly marrying a close blood relative becasue the child had no idea who his family was. Do you propose in your egalitarian argument that this restriction is bad as well.
Since Prop 8 allowed for Civil Unions the only argument relavant then is the one above. Marraige is not about "Love". Marraige for "Love" is a luxury afforded peoples of the 19th century due to our abilty to feed each other more efficiently. Marraige is about the "propagation of the species. How do we encourage that.
Should gay people never mate? Why should a civil bond between homosexuals preclude any kind of marraige contract with another for the purpose of raising children? Your method precludes this.
"We are called Conservatives for a reason."
Indeed. You are called "conservatives" for one reason: Small (synonym for that: CONSERVATIVE) government. Whereas your opposites are called "liberals" for another reason: Expansive (synonym for LIBERAL) government. That's the actual, original starting point for using these vauge units of measurement (conservative= limited/small amount, liberal= large amount) to describe governmental philosophies. The notion that "conservative" ought ALSO be (mis)used to apply to "old-fashioned"/"traditional" social values was a far later invention – for the longest time, the societal-cleanup busybodies tended to self-identify as liberal/progressives (see: Prohibition.)
Your point about divorce is exactly correct. Where were all these defenders of marriage when marriage really needed defending?
http://shermansmarch.blogspot.com
Why would family values be a plank of a political party as opposed to a social idea?
Because the other side keeps advocating a free-for-all that appears a sure recipe for anarchy, with personal responsibility being virtually non-existent. So in a blanket format Republicans are opposed to the opposition, thus are for these family values.
And you are squarely in the middle of denial about "injury to another person." Legalize drugs, and then say family and friends who are distressed at someone's addiction are not being injured? The addict who cares nothing about anything besides feeding their habit, even as it kills them, is not harming others? Adultery laws are currently a joke on enforcement. If such behavior should not be regulated as it is "personal intervention," then it can be done away with even as a basis for divorce. A spouse can see other lovers, even nice legal prostitutes, there is no injury to another. Etc, etc.
You might need a fact check on that, Jim Crow laws existed for quite some time after that.
You are advocating negotiating with social terrorists?
I agree with what you say about the "gay gene." Gays want to clamor on about how their behavior is "pre-programmed" etc., and many times make an argument that "they would never have chosen "this life" for themselves. So if given the opportunity, what potential parent is going to willingly choose homosexuality for a coming newborn? If they ever do discover a "gay gene" (and I don't believe they ever will because one does not exist any more than a "thief gene" exists) homosexuality and the whole gay culture will disappear.
You are confusing the pronoun Conservative with the adjective conservative.
This is not tough. If you want same-sex marriage in your state pass a resolution and have it recognized in your state. Don't allow your state supreme court to do an end-around nor the use the US Supreme Court shoot down the rights of other states to only recognize traditional marriage.
Legalizing same-sex marriage is moving in the wrong direction. The federal and state governments should get out of the business of recognizing marriage at all. After they recognized no-fault divorce, the whole business became a farce. Recognize people's tax dependents. That's all that matters. Stop treating people different for being married. But that would require ending the welfare state.
What I got from this article was that the author does not believe the FEDERAL GOV'T has any power to control marriage, as that it has been the purview of the individual states. Therefore, Republicans, since they are strict constitutionalists, should not be advocating a FEDERAL LAW or CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT that outlaws gay marriage.
It should be left to the States.
And I for one am in complete agreement with that, just as many of you are probably in agreement with the same thing for abortions – overturn Roe v. Wade and send it back to the States, as it should be.
Nonetheless, my state – CA – has voted and while I disagree with it, I know that people may change their minds and the supporters can bring another initiative and see if it happens. That's the way it's supposed to work.
(cont'd)
Religious institutions are exempt from most federal anti-discrimination laws, excepting when they engage in business ventures in fields that are at least in part "public" and federally regulated. In the shorthand, that generally means that the Catholic Church cannot be FORCED to ordain women as priests, but they DO have to conform with legally-mandated gender-neutral hiring practices at either the state or federal level in Catholic hospitals, book stores, adoption agencies, etc.
Churches are unlikely to face any LEGAL "harm" from gay marriage. What IS likely is that, as society becomes more accepting of homosexuals (which is coming one way or another, "marriage" or not) churches that are NOT accepting will begin to feel further marginalized and cut-off from the broader culture. In which case… cry me a river, honestly.
Morally speaking, unlike many of you, I don't have a problem with homosexuality. I'm an agnostic and former Catholic. I don't believe that most homosexuals "choose" to be that way, I believe they are born that way. I believe that in the end, the only ones that are going to "marry" or "create a civil union" are those that probably hold similar family values as the rest of us – commitment, monogamy, raising a family. It may sound weird to many of you, but I have met these people and they are not weird at all. They may even be – gasp – conservatives and Republicans.
(cont'd)
Of course, I am always willing to agree to disagree and while I don't share your religious POV on the subject, I respect it, which is why I have advocated and proposed the following many times on the subject:
I have heard several other conservatives and liberatarians also advocate something that I came up with not long ago – a sort of compromise: since many people who oppose "gay marriage", but support "civil unions", then I think to make it fair to all, EVERYBODY, regardless of sexual orientation gets a "civil union license" from the State and can be "united" by a Justice of the Peace. If the couple wants to "marry" as well, then they can do so in a Church and no Church, Synagogue or Mosque or other religious institution will be required to perform a "marriage" ceremony if it is against the tenets of their religion on MORAL grounds (in other words, some weirdo racist church that doesn't marry interracial couples wouldn't count because there is no "moral" reason for not doing so).
I think that's the fairest thing and the best thing otherwise we're going to be hashing this out for 50 years instead of concentrating on more important things, like the March to Socialism/Fascism that our country is taking, and our National Security.
Sorry that was kind of long.
Cheers.
I have never found myself in greater agreement with an article published on this site. Ever.
Every toolbox who just started mentally-typing some variation of "Well, that PROVES she's wrong! yuk-yuk-yuk!,"? Please, try harder
II. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL
RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/c...
Slaughtering strawmen will be next. Oh wait, you're already doing it.
No it will not, because then liberals will speak from the other side of their mouths and demand legislation preventing screening for it. You can abort for any reason, select any embryos you want for implanting for any reason, except that one. I am pragmatic enough that I accepted that even as I was writing.
However, after the expected court challenges fail, there will still be more "enlightened" countries allowing it, and it will be something that "just happens to be noticed" in genetic testing while liberals insist no reason at all needs be noted for any decisions concerning the pre-born. Welcome to the grey, if it cannot be proven then it never happened and it did not matter anyway. Liberals are used to it.
My point about divorce was that the concept of marriage has already suffered considerable diminution at the hands of those who'd have it exist only at their convenience (kind of like the concept of life). You are certainly free to use that same point about divorce to bolster whatever argument you wish to make; I – respectfully – may or may not agree…
Well the argument is largely factually free and A-historical. But your sarcastic winky emoticon really sells it.
That's what the "eventually" was for. I never said the legal process was speedy.
Do posts occasionally get mixed up between here and Huffington?
"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."
If you believed that, then wouldn't you be arguing for abolishing federal sponsorship and endorsement of marriage and not arguing to redefine it? The 'if you love the constitution you should be for gay marriage' idea is completely backwards. The law treats different behaviors differently. Why do we have to pretend that two obviously different and inherently unequal behaviors are the same? Why do homosexual norms have to be imposed upon family based institutions such as adoption agencies? The gay marriage effort is an attack on the free exercise of conscious, common sense, and faith. Now those are things that are supposed to be protected by the Constitution.
To the best of my knowledge, there have been no restrictions on interracial marriage in federal jurisdictions since the Civil War Amendments. However, many states had bans on interracial marriage until the Supreme Court, ruling on race (not on marriage per se) declared such laws unconsitutional about thirty-two years ago. The Court has traditionally left the rules regarding marriage to the states, such as age, consanguinity, consent, etc., but it intervened in this issue because of impermissible invidious discrimination based solely on race. Even before the decision, most states outside the deep South had expunged interracial marriage prohibition. An interesting side note is that although the law has not been enforced since the Supreme Court decision, Alabama retained the ban on its books until it was repealed in 1999. Theoretically, the Supreme Court will not intervene in the gay marriage debate since sex is not a constitutionally protected class, and marriage is not embedded in the Constitution, allowing the states sole discretion in those matters. A suit has been filed in federal court in San Francisco challenging that traditional view, and arguing that the Constitutional provision of equal protection of the laws applies to same-sex marriage. The suit challenges California's Proposition 8 on federal grounds rather than the state grounds which were upheld recently by the California Supreme Court. Betting among the legal community right now seems to lean toward the U. S. Supreme Court rejecting the claim, but stranger things have happened, and lawyers are often wrong when they try to outguess the Supreme Court.
Actually, it was as late as the 1970s. Alabama didn't take the laws off the books until 1999, but they weren't enforced after the Supreme Court decision. The court ruled on the issue of racial discrimination, and marriage was an incidental issue. Denying equal protection of the laws has only been applied to matters involving race, creed, color, national original, or prior condition of servitude. Marriage and the sex of the partners is not in the Constitution or any of its amendment, so those matters have been left to the states.
Yes, sort of. Four conservatives and two liberals concurred on the constitutionality of Prop 8.
Miscegenation laws refer only to laws which discriminate on the basis of race, a 14th Amendment "protected class." Sex, gender, and marriage are not "protected" classes for purposes of decisions based on equal protection and due process. If the federal suit filed in San Francisco challenging Prop 8 is successful when appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, that rule will have been changed for the first time in over 140 years. Unlikely, but not impossible.
Thank you for the reply.
What exactly is a constitutionally protected class? The Nineteenth Amendment (voting rights regardless of sex) mentions gender, but even though it is a noted distinction that (theoretically) had a right extended based on it, it is not a protected class? Or are we actually talking about sexual orientation which is not mentioned at all?
Marriage to most is not something the government should be involved in, it's a religious factor, if people believe in separation of church and state, then gay marriage goes against that.
People accept the idea of gay civil unions, just not marriage.. but see the gays oppose this, they reject the idea that they can have what they want under a different name, which to me just goes to show it's not about the rights, it's just about wanting something because they are told they can't have it.
For some preposterous reason whenever a Marxist decides you are an enemy they compare you to the Nazis and call you a fascist. That, for me, is the penultimate in utter contrived hyperbole. This is nothing short of apocrypha hypocrisy. A comparative example would be something to the effect of Cuba demanding that the United States defend its sovereignty against a suspected Russian invasion.
I'm not so sure Republicans are making this the issue that defines the party. I doubt we'd talk about it at all if the gay rights lobby would just take a breather, but when Republicans are supposed to be defending the Consitution and many of their voters are justifiably concerned about what will happen to Freedom of Religion among others – Laws in Oregan, Connecticut, for example – I don't see that they have much choice.
I tend to more or less agree with you. I also think that calling what the government does a civil union for everyone – even married couples – an acceptable compromise.
There are plenty of things that I think are morally wrong that are legal, but they don't ingringe on anyone else's rights when people engage in those practices which is to me the true test of whether or not "there oughta be a law." There are conversely things the are illegal that I think shouldn't be illegal (no, pot isn't one of them).
The great irony of the left is that they scream loud and hard about "legislating morality" and then they turn around and are busily passing a hate crime law at the Federal level. Soon enough, I won't be able to say that I think homosexuality is immoral due to my religious beliefs without potentially being accused of a hate-crime should the wrong person overhear me. And yet, I don't hate gays, I just think the practice is immoral. I've heard plenty of people opine the same thing about smokers.
The Gay marriage debate is NOT about equal rights. A lesbian woman has equal marriage rights as any other woman in this country just as any gay man has the same right to marry as any other man in this country. This is a debate about the definition of marriage pure and simple. If a gay man wants to marry a woman, fine, that is marriage. If he wants to have a union with another man that IS NOT marriage, sorry it just isn't. Do I have a problem extending basic rights of partnership? (insurance rights, joint ownership, survivership, etc.) No, but I am definately not for redifining one of the cornerstones of western civilization.
Oh and I can't think of anyone who ever wanted to mandate school prayer, how about just freedom to practice our religion (something about congress shall make no law. . .)
Don't know if it has been mentioned yet but the reason "gay marriage" is a constitutional issue is because of the "full faith and credit" clause. This clause is the reason you don't have to "re-marry" if you and your spouse move to a state different from the one you married in. This is important because one way advocates of "gay marriage" are attempting to get around the will of the citizens of a state is to marry in a state that allows "gay marriage" and then insist your resident state recognize the marriage. This why people are working at the federal level to keep the traditional definition of marriage. If "gay marriage" advocates where more willing to use the political process to get what they want, instead of the judicial process, laws like DOMA wouldn't be necessary.
So, we, "Republicans" (conservatives) are supposed to adopt yet another Democrat (liberal) tenet in order to be validated as a party and garner what exactly……MORE votes? Puh….lease!!! The respective party hacks have been pandering to whatever special interest group "of the day" happens to be screaming loudest for too many election cycles to count now, and your attempt at a "reasonable" argument in favor of Republicans supporting gay marriage is just another glaring sign that we need to weed out those of you in our midst so we can keep focused on what our party has represented up until it was infiltrated by the likes of your sort. Being in favor of gay marriage isn't going to do anything for our party or our country and would only serve to send us even further in the wrong direction. I am sick to death of 'so-called" far right conservatives continually beating the "moderate" drum arguing that it is representative of what Americans are looking for. It's ridiculous and only serves to ad them to the left column and make them irrelevent in the conservative movement.
….l
Big Government wants to raise the children of the State, and has been working toward that end for awhile, mostly through the 'feminist' cause, led largely by gay activists. Payback for them was gay adoption, which would facilitate 'gay marriage', because "Hey, look, we've got kids now!" bec ame part of the argument. With Big Government taking over the role that it once provided benefits to a couple for in order to permit one spouse to stay home with the kids, there was less and less a connection between marriage and child rearing, and the way was paved for genderless marriage. Unfortunately, Government NEVER relinquishes control, and is now providing BOTH marriage AND child care/indoctrination.
Homosexuality is a problem that stems from poor relationship with a father and an overbearing mother. Scratch under the surface of any homosexual male and you will find this dynamic.
This "Ignorant" Columnist does not see at all the real debate. Most likely because there is a consistent editorial drumbeat to change conservatives opinions on the glories of homosex. What I would ask the "Freedom and Liberty Loving Conservatives on these forums is this" Why not get rid of any kind of recognition of an interpersonal relationship such as marriage or civil unions AT ALL. JUST GET RID OF IT. Let private organizations…MARRY. No recognition by government. If you want FREEDOM…why not PUSH THAT AGENDA. Why don't you? Answer…you feel the onslaught of the gay P.R Machine and you are trying to make room for it. There is a problem however, Religious freedoms GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT are butting up against people's mysterious SEXUAL FREEDOMS…NO WHERE FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION AT ALL…and the MILITANT SEXUALISTS ARE WINNING THOSE ARGUMENTS. You can start by exploring this intellectual argument here
1. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/074256326X...
2. Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon on her concern on how Religious Liberties are under threat by Gay Marriage and Sexual Orientation Laws
2. http://tv.nationalreview.com/offthepage/post/?q=M...
3. http://airmaria.com/2009/03/07/video-news-1-relig...
What has already happened and is happening
1. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Arti...
2. Photographer in New Mexico fined by state for refusing to take pictures of a "Gay Wedding"
3. Boy scouts taken all the way to Supreme Court for not cowtowing to "Gay Scout Leaders".
4. Gay Fascism on the move in the U.K here http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,253...
Get over the "Gay" drumbeat…I do not bow down to the integrity and glories of people who identify themselves by sexual compulsions…good luck to you…keep it in your private life not federal laws
Oops Mary Ann Glendon comments here http://hispanicpundit.com/2005/06/30/does-gay-mar...
There IS NO GAY GENE…GET OVER IT PEOPLE….Lets consult HIGH PRIESTESS OPRAH ON THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT STRAIGHT FROM HER MAGAZINE ARTICLE ON "WHY WOMEN ARE LEAVING MEN FOR LESBIAN RELATIONSHIPS"
"Over the past several decades, scientists have struggled in fits and starts to get a handle on sexual orientation. Born or bred? Can it change during one's lifetime? A handful of studies in the 1990s, most of them focused on men, suggested that homosexuality is hardwired. In one study, researchers linked DNA markers in the Xq28 region of the X chromosome to gay males. But a subsequent larger study failed to replicate the results, leaving the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association to speculate that sexual orientation probably has multiple causes, including environmental, cognitive, and biological factors.
Today, however, a new line of research is beginning to approach sexual orientation as much less fixed than previously thought, especially when it comes to women. The idea that human sexuality forms a continuum has been around since 1948, when Alfred Kinsey introduced his famous six-point scale, with 0 representing complete heterosexuality, 6 signifying complete homosexuality, and bisexuality in the middle, where many of the men and women he interviewed fell. The new buzz phrase coming out of contemporary studies is "sexual fluidity." "People always ask me if this research means everyone is bisexual. No, it doesn't," says Lisa Diamond, PhD, associate professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah and author of the 2008 book Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women's Love and Desire. "Fluidity represents a capacity to respond erotically in unexpected ways due to particular situations or relationships. It doesn't appear to be something a woman can control." Furthermore, studies indicate that it's more prevalent in women than in men, according to Bonnie Zylbergold, assistant editor of American Sexuality, an online magazine.
In a 2004 landmark study at Northwestern University, the results were eye-opening. During the experiment, the female subjects became sexually aroused when they viewed heterosexual as well as lesbian erotic films. This was true for both gay and straight women. Among the male subjects, however, the straight men were turned on only by erotic films with women, the gay ones by those with men. "We found that women's sexual desire is less rigidly directed toward a particular sex, as compared with men's, and it's more changeable over time," says the study's senior researcher, J. Michael Bailey, PhD. "These findings likely represent a fundamental difference between men's and women's brains."
This idea, that the libido can wander back and forth between genders, Diamond admits, may be threatening and confusing to those with conventional beliefs about sexual orientation. But when the women she's interviewed explain their feelings, it doesn't sound so wild. Many of them say, for example, they are attracted to the person, and not the gender—moved by traits like kindness, intelligence, and humor, which could apply to a man or a woman. Most of all, they long for an emotional connection. And if that comes by way of a female instead of a male, the thrill may override whatever heterosexual orientation they had. "
F YOU AND YOUR SEXUALITY….IT DOESN"T BELONG IN LAW
Education was largely a local concern for decades. The federal government, in the form of the Supreme Court, banned prayer in public schools. Now we have the illustrious Department of Education, a federal agency.
Speaking of which, Obama wants to appoint one Kevin Jennings to it. Not only did Jennings write the foreword to a book called "Q u e e r i n g Elementary," which argues for indoctrinating elementary school kids about the "normality" of homosexual behavior, but according a recent Townhall column by Kevin McCullough,
"In a documented case that Jennings now admits to, he once counseled a young boy who had been molested by an older male teacher. The confused student naturally turned to an adult figure for explanations, support, and direction. But when this issue came to Jennings attention, even though the law required his notification of the parents, the school district, and the local law enforcement authorities, Jennings now admits he notified no one."
Naturally the Dave Konig's and Maura Flynn's of the world are oblivious to the connection between the push for gay marriage and the indoctrination of a new generation. Or maybe not. Maybe next column they'll be explaining the "Republican case" or the "conservative case" for explaining the joys of f i s t i n g to six-year-olds.
How about that? The word "Q u e e r i n g" in the title of a book by a gay rights advocate was getting my post automatically banned here!
I do have to agree to you to an extent, growing up I had quite a few gay men and women in my school, most of their stories were very alike, most of the gay men were raised in a home either with no father and a very dominant mother, or if a father was there he was a very weak willed man where the women walked all over him.
Most lesbians either experienced sexual abuse at a young age, or just mental abuse from boys.
It's tough for me to listen to a Lesbian tell me she is not attracted to men at all and don't want anything a man has to give them, then watch them date a woman who looks like the ugliest man alive, and strap on something that is a rubber equal to the something a man would have given them.
Travesty that children are being raised by "Militant Sexualists" facilitated by the state who want their cake and eat it to. Sexual Compulsions got you down because you can't physically have children? No problem the state will ensure you get them. Meanwhile the most innocent people in our culture are subject to our little social experiments, confusing them and possibly indoctrinating them….WHY? Because WE WANT…what WE WANT.
Denying a child to the possibility of having a "MOTHER"..and a "FATHER"? Dennis Prager lays open the debate bare with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTE9zWaQc_Y
"… 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."
These are not mutually exclusive. Republicans believe in smaller, less intrusive government, not "no" government. It's nice to say after 235 years "be free, marry who you want" and don't let anybody use the government to tell me what to do. The problem is the government already has… with marriage laws, divorce laws, tax laws, property rights, sex laws, etc. Unless you're going to throw out ALL laws tied to marriage and start over, it's more than a little idealistic to say Conservatives should do this or that. It's unrealistic. Conservatives have watched the country they once knew turn into something they no longer recognize as it is. Acceptance of gay marriage is another sign post telling us how much farther away we've gone.
No Arguments Here….I say tear it down
Yup all arguments against "Gay Marriage" are void of intellectual reason. No arguments….nitwit.
http://tv.nationalreview.com/offthepage/post/?q=M...
@antifascist
White liberals support the Black vote so long as it goes THEIR way.
Exhibit A is my home of Washington, DC, in which the local Democrat government is doing EVERYTHING to prevent residents from voting on homosexual "marriage." Did I forget to mention that DC is a majority Black DEMOCRAT city?
White liberals and their Black allies (read: sellouts) fear that Black Democrats will vote for traditional marriage if given the chance. (See Prop.
So, the libs are essentially revoking Black voting rights in DC and to heck with the US Constitution. The irony is that it's White liberals who always declare that White conservatives want to disenfranchise Black voters.
Say what you will about the Ku Klux Klan, but, unlike "tolerant" White liberals, at least they're HONEST about hating Black people.
Adams meant Christian morals and religious beliefs.
Kad… that first line sums it up…
Then you agree with the Founding Fathers this is a State's Rights issue that the federal government should stay out of (my position all along).
This has always been and always should be a states' rights issue, and the sooner some on the right realize that (instead of trying to sneak it in like they do), the better off everyone will be.
@BudEurope
The current state of the American Black community alone justifies your fears. Big Hollywood blogger Ken Blackwell explains "tolerating" single Black parent families in the past has led to a horrible present:
"In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan saw a 24 percent out-of-wedlock birthrate in the black community and sounded the alarm. All the great gains of the civil rights movement were threatened by the breakdown of the black family, Moynihan warned. He suffered then the fate of the prophet without honor. As the messenger bearing the bad news, he was very nearly stoned. His unheeded warnings about crime, drugs, educational failure have become the collection of pathologies that all Americans know too well. Today, Moynihan’s distinguished public career is honored, but his message is too little heeded."
After these disastrous decades, it's not surprising that more Black people now aggressively fight to rebuild the family and oppose future threats (e.g., homosexual "marriage").
Here is the rest of Blackwell's column, which also explains how neglecting the traditional family leads to MORE Big Government:
http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/15349
Given the evidence, it's it sad that some conservative White people support homosexual "marriage," which will lead to less individual freedom long term.
You're right about Canada and Europe.
What's sad is this same political correctness has been used by Muslims to silences their critics. Not surprisingly, Islam (the true, Sharia version) is marching across Europe with Canada not far behind.
And, unlike Christianity, Islam views homosexuals as vermin to be exterminated instead human beings worthy of basic respect.
Talk about the laws of unintended consequences.
True, It is true that the Constitution has nothing in it about marriage but it does have the 10th amendment. Thus giving this right to the states. As I have said on my blog. Marriage is a religious rite and the government should get out of it. If a church wants to marry gay people let them but as with all marriages there should be no legal standing on it. If the said married people then want to go and incorperate themselves then let them. Two diffrent things and the government should only be conserned about the incorperation
Sounds like all the czar mumbo jumbo….you don't like the law blah blah blah, we will just rewrite it….open pandora's box and you will get all the freedom that a lawless society will allow.
The government used to not be in the marriage business at all – it was left up to the churches. Government bureaucracy only got involved in an effort to enforce laws against miscegenation by demanding that couples apply for marriage licenses so it could be ascertained that they were of the same race.
Jas, I wasn't sure from your post if you were a troll or not…mea culpa. However, the reason it is still discussed on blogs like this is because the LGBT community is still speaking. It isn't about rights, it's about political power and acceptance. If you disagree with that agenda, why would we stop discussing it? The battle is far from over…I disagree that letting them set the terms of the conflict is "garbage".
And BTW, I'm always happy to play if people are serious.
If you want to be the party of freedom, how about getting government out of the marriage business althgether? Gay marriage is about two things and two things only. One: It's primarily about getting insurance benefits for aids patients. Second: it's about FORCING traditional institutions to accept the homosexual lifestyle. Marriage was personal business until the late 19th century in this country. Government meddling in marriage is just another avenue for big-brother to tax and regulate our lives. Get government out of marriage and start treating people with human dignity!
Hey – if four people, a goat and several species of small furry animals are IN LOVE, shouldn't they have the right to marry?
Excellent analogy!
Nobody's interfering with anybody's activities, you lying sack of sheets. The question has to do with allowing the government to redefine things any old way it wants to. To deny that homos can be in any sense called married is not to deny them the right to form civil unions with exactly the same legal and financial benefits. But homos don't want civil unions with equal benefits. They already have that in California and that's not good enough for them. They want the word "marriage." They want to destroy it. THAT's what this is all about.
But I guess you're cool with all the other Orwellian absurdities that follow from allowing the government such creative definition-making power, such as the woman who had a penis sewn on but kept her female baby-making parts who is now being billed as the first pregnant man in history. If she is recognized as male under the law, then you are left with no choice but to go along like a good little idiot and tell how much you admire the Emperor's fine clothes…either that, or consciously and knowingly live in a society where the law no longer mirrors reality and there is no logical coherence whatsoever. No amount of stitching and switching on the part of man can change what that creature was made by nature. Nor can it change the fact that marriage is, by nature, the union of a man and a woman.
Some conservative you are.
well, does that include you? If so, NO.
Marriage isn’t a constitutional right. The people have always defined what makes a marriage. If you're for gay marriage, are you also for polygamous marriages? And if you're for polygamous marriages, does that make you a libertarian or an anarchist?
Homosexuals can enter into almost any contractual agreement they want to amongst themselves. The only “rights” they don’t have access to are the rights that are subsidized by government. That’s right: Marriage is costly to a society. We purposely subsidize marriages because that’s how (traditionally anyways) children have come into the world. And without reproduction, a society comes to a screeching halt. Just look at the laborious strains Europe and Russia have gone to for the people to procreate.
And yes, I know that homosexuals adopt. But try as we might, America and Europe aren’t going to redefine nature. Children function best when they have a stable home with a mother and father. Period.
Can one marry his mother legally. Surely the Constitution guarantees that right, I mean all men and women and children are created equal in the eyes of the libs.
I am back to my polygomy question.
BTW- thanks for the legal info, quite useful.
Marriage is God's institution, not man's. This is simply re-creating marriage in our own image because we no longer accept God's definition. If we adopt gy marriage, we might as well be forging a golden calf at the base of Mt Sainai.
Homosexuality IS unnatural. Just look at the plumbing. Clearly, we were designed with one thing in mind.
I have no issue with gay relationships. I am on the fence on the marriage thing. I am clear being gay is not "natural."
Nicely reasoned. Thanks.
Depends on the contracts. If you are a bondholder or due a bonus, apparently, not much.
How about if we get rid of the entire "marriage" thing in government once and for all. "Civil unions" for all.
If people want to get married, they ought to go to a church or temple or other religious institution.
In France, they have a civil marriage and then you go to your church and get married if you want to. The civil ceremony is the ONLY one that counts legally.
And no, they do not permit gay marriage.
You're absolutely right. If the fundamental ground of marriage is changed from the production, care, and education of offspring to nothing but the always-ephemeral "love," there is no basis whatsoever for denying, say, your neighborhood bridge club the right to form a marriage…or a man and his horse…or a man, two women, three Cocker Spaniels, and a toaster oven.
People are fond of saying that such things are absurd–that "it will never happen"–as if fifty years ago anyone thought a third of the population would have gone insane and been dumbed down enough by 2010 to actually believe that two men or two women could marry. Such crazy things WILL happen, because the logical barrier to their happening will have been removed. (Of course, in reality our civilization will very likely have collapsed under the weight of such absurdities by that point, but we're talking hypothetically here.)
"… and then use the federal government to impose school prayer"
Ms. Flynn, I'd like to introduce you to an acquaintance of mine, Mr. Straw Man… Oh! I see you've met!
I don't oppose same sex marriage, but Flynn's argument is incoherent. No state is currently requiring gay citizens at gunpoint to live their lives according to the values of the moral majoritarians. At worst, states are withholding from gays the official seal of approval they give to heterosexuals. Flynn argues that, under the Constitution, governments have no right to regulate marriage. Leave aside the fact that Flynn's view of the constitution is almost as fringy as that of the tax protesters who claim that the constitution says they don't have to pay income tax. By Flynn's own logic, the states should not start giving marriage licenses to same sex couples; it should stop giving them to anyone. If the states do that, the situation of gays will be unchanged: they still will not have the State's seal of approval.
Of course, our laws attach many privileges to the status of being "married." There are strong arguments that at least some of those privileges should either be abolished or expanded to non-married people whose status fits the policy behind the privilege. But Flynn is not making those arguments.
Good points, but I will say this – any church that completely conforms to the current mores, no matter which way the wind blows and mores change is not a church. At least, they're not preaching Truth.
You either believe in an objective Truth or you don't. Truth doesn't change with popular opinion – if it did, then why bother?
I liken that to the idea of the constitution being a "living document." If it was, then the lawyers can twist it to mean whatever they want it to mean. The bedrock of our republic will then be sitting on sand and can topple at any time.
So to stick with the concept as normally worded despite this story, all women really are at least a little bit bi? Science is confirming what so many adolescent schoolboys have assumed for… actually for such a very long time I think even the early Greeks believed it.
The dichotomy of views continues. An overwhelmingly liberal show like Brothers and Sisters, where RINO's are passed off as true conservatives, is allowed to get away with saying (this is not exact) there are no bisexuals, you never find 60 year old bisexual men, only gays. That wonderful religion so respected by Number 44 is slaughtering male gays (as found in Iran) but still has the concept of harems where it is not discussed what the women do as long as one man has unfettered access to any. And it doesn't take much of an honest and open evaluation to notice that virtually all women are frequently dismissed and often criticized by male homosexuals regardless of the woman's orientation.
In summary, men are a plain switch, on or off. I have heard before there is also a "substitution" factor among otherwise straight males, as found in prisons and Europe. Women in comparison are light dimmers, whatever setting works for them.
The long-standing common knowledge of adolescent boys is now confirmed by science. Beautiful. During the experiment, the female subjects became sexually aroused when they viewed heterosexual as well as lesbian erotic films. This was true for both gay and straight women. Among the male subjects, however, the straight men were turned on only by erotic films with women, the gay ones by those with men. Another common observation, note how strip clubs are considered acceptable by many women despite what certain feminist groups say. And not only are boys and girls different, but boy homosexuals are different from girl homosexuals.
One thing seems for certain, the more one gets into this, the more "equality," where we pretend everyone is the same, keeps making less practical sense. How do we not legislate about something that keeps getting revealed as near-hopelessly complicated whenever it is looked at? I mean, leaving sex or sexual orientation out of legislation makes exactly as much sense as leaving race out of legislation.
To paraphrase Dilbert, that popping sound you hear is liberal paradigms shifting without a clutch.
So to stick with the concept as normally worded despite this story, all women really are at least a little bit bi? Science is confirming what so many adolescent schoolboys have assumed for… actually for such a very long time I think even the early Greeks believed it.
The dichotomy of views continues. An overwhelmingly liberal show like Brothers and Sisters, where RINO's are passed off as true conservatives, is allowed to get away with saying (this is not exact) there are no bisexuals, you never find 60 year old bisexual men, only gays. That wonderful religion so respected by Number 44 is slaughtering male gays (as found in Iran) but still has the concept of harems where it is not discussed what the women do as long as one man has unfettered access to any. And it doesn't take much of an honest and open evaluation to notice that virtually all women are frequently dismissed and often criticized by male homosexuals regardless of the woman's orientation.
In summary, men are a plain switch, on or off. I have heard before there is also a "substitution" factor among otherwise straight males, as found in prisons and Europe. Women in comparison are light dimmers, whatever setting works for them.
The long-standing common knowledge of adolescent boys is now confirmed by science. Beautiful. During the experiment, the female subjects became sexually aroused when they viewed heterosexual as well as lesbian erotic films. This was true for both gay and straight women. Among the male subjects, however, the straight men were turned on only by erotic films with women, the gay ones by those with men. Another common observation, note how strip clubs are considered acceptable by many women despite what certain feminist groups say. And not only are boys and girls different, but boy homosexuals are different from girl homosexuals.
One thing seems for certain, the more one gets into this, the more "equality," where we pretend everyone is the same, keeps making less practical sense. How do we not legislate about something that keeps getting revealed as near-hopelessly complicated whenever it is looked at? I mean, leaving sex or sexual orientation out of legislation makes exactly as much sense as leaving race out of legislation.
To paraphrase Dilbert, that popping sound you hear is liberal paradigms shifting without a clutch.
And the other spaced out word may likely mean your original post will not be there much longer. Some decorum please. Up until the last paragraph it was a well-written post BTW.
Whatever happened to Separation of Church and State? Why not put forth a law legalizing Civil Unions for same sex couples?Leave the church free to marry who they want while allowing EVERYONE the right to marry at City Hall. If the Gay/Lesbian faction were smart, they would push for legalizing same sex civil unions and leave marriage alone.
The Gay lobby needs to concede that if and (sadly) when ANY marriage amendment is passed, it should allow churches a choice based on their doctrine. Finding a church to get married in will not be a problem, heck, most Episcopal, Unitarian and Methodist churches will marry a same sex couple. Compulsory participation should not be required. The idea of coexisting peacefully is a nice one but it seems that conservative values are always the ones that are thrown aside for the sake of it… At some point we need to stand up for what is RIGHT and fair.
John Simpson wrote:
"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. "
It should be noted that many in your state think homosexual marriage is a BAD idea:
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000009986.cfm
So, expect many a pro-homosexual Senator to be shown the door next year. This is even more likely since homosexual marriage passed ONLY because of undemocratic tactics (i.e., cheating):
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000010142.cfm
"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?"
There was also a time that it was politically correct for White politicians to support slavery in the UK. Forgive me for siding with abolitionist politicians like William Wilberforce who put standing by (just) anti-slavery principles ahead of political expediency.
Similarly, I think the GOP shouldn't cave on homosexual "marriage," which is unpopular with many Americans. Instead, like Wilberforce, the GOP should explain WHY traditional marriage is worth defending-instead of redefining-for the sake of society.
Can one marry his mother? Or even her mother? Sure, nothing against it in the Constitution. Nothing in there against drugs and prostitution, bring on the coke and hookers.
Oh wait, federal drug laws come from the interstate commerce clause. But marital status has financial implications across state lines. So since the federal government can claim jurisdiction over drugs it can also claim jurisdiction over marriage. Does that make too much sense?
you are not a conservative, and these are not conservative 'values'… what you are is a libertarian, and judging by your self professed 'edge' of the party and moniker one suspects you are most likely gay as well. No problem there.
But at least know what it is that you yourself are. Libertarians get about 2% of the vote, which is why the sobriquet 'Losertarians'. They abdicate any societal responsibility in the name of 'freedom'. Believe it or not. Libertarianism is to the RIGHT of conservatism,and just below that of anarchy…
The libertine lifestyle you project is not anywhere near as popular as you think…
very well done, logic can be separated from emotion, and atheism is not antithetical to conservatism…
nice post.
I can see only two reasons for marriage: moral and legal. If you marry for strictly moral reasons, the government has no business being involved. If some religion wants to say this or that is moral, go for it. But keep the state out, the state has no business getting involved and then telling you how to divide your property should you decide to break up or anything else. Limit the power of the state.
As for legal, the only reason the government has any right to be involved is if there is possibility of children. I am willing to concede that the state has an interest in encouraging and protecting children. That is why polygamy ought to be illegal, and why gay marriage makes no sense (that gays can adopt begs the question: what entity permits that adoption, or in some states can you just go down to Kids R Us and pick up a child?)
Ultimately, I do not understand why so many seemingly intelligent people want to grant the state power over yet another area of life. The state has no legitimate interest in gay marriage, keep it out.
I don't know what the laws are like in your state, but a person here can get a divorce for any reason, adultery or no.
Your example of a drug addicts family or friends being "injured" by the addicts behavior falls short. If the addict steals from or physically abuses them then the family has legal recourse. How is it any different from an alcoholic?
Anyone who opposes the legalization of drugs is the one living in the land of denial. Drugs are already here and easily available. There is little that anyone can do to make their acquisition easier. Legalization would remove the underground criminal element a la prohibition. Let's learn from the past shall we?
John Simpson wrote:
"As long as churches and individuals are protected from compulsory participation, as is now the case in NH, I have no problem with this."
Read the following:
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000010176.cfm
If you're still skeptical, listen to this radio broadcast, "Same–sex Marriage and Religious Liberty":
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/BreakPoint/arc...
Hence, Christians like myself are not paranoid in viewing homosexual "marriage" laws as the first step to stifling religious freedom a la China.
(cont.)
"Doesn't matter anyway, it's the law there now."
It's the law only because pro-homosexual lawmakers expelled the lone guy who didn't support their goals:
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000010142.cfm
It's such dirty tactics like the above that make many people reject the "civil rights = gay rights" argument. I don't recall Dr. King saying it was okay to expel lawmakers who disagree with you.
Anyone who engages in homosexuality can marry, so what is the problem.
You are not smarter than Shakespeare so stop dicking around with the meaning of words!
The point you chuckleheads keep missing is that by attempting to legislate YOUR morality, you are no different than any other chucklehead who believes they can successfully legislate THEIR morality. What I choose to do in my own home doesn't affect you in any way so long as I'm not endangering another person.
But your vision of a country populated by people who believe exactly like you blinds you to this. This is exactly what we are fighting in the Middle East with the only difference being degree. You already IMPRISON people who peacefully disagree with you. Putting them in danger of RAPE and DEATH.
I totally agree with this post. I am all about state's rights. It is the only opportunity to get your voice even remotely heard. The federal government is so far removed from reality.
With that said, California has spoken, move to Vermont.
There is no contradiction between the two schools of thought; they are in fact one and the same. Limited government IS a traditional value.
The flipside of limited government is functioning social institutions and personal responsibility. Therefore you need to defend other traditional values, which are rooted in centuries of human experience. "Experiments in living" must remain the exception, not the rule. It is no accident that fascists, nazis and socialists always rip down every tradition and institution FIRST. That is how they grow their numbers. Come Zero Hour there is only the state and you. Being only for small government is a fools errand, just as the big government conservatism of the religious left is misguided.
Whether gay marriage is part of that problem is debateable. I think once you start redefining one of the core institutions of human life, there will be no end to it.
Gov McGreevy married twice so how can it be said that homosexuals are not free to marry?
I'll try again…
"Others believe that being conservative is about electing a government that will defend and ENFORCE “traditional” VALUES."
It is not the job of the government to enforce – at the point of a gun – VALUES! It enforces laws. There's a difference. Please try and understand the argument before commenting.
"Why would family values be a plank of a political party …"
Au contraire, what could be more obvious?
I am for all the things you mention, but not exclusively. A strict small government candidate will win 25% of votes, if he is lucky. Guys who don´t want to govern won´t govern. Someone else will.
To quote Roger Scruton again:
"It is a tautology to say that a conservative is a person who wants to conserve things; the question is what things? To this I think we can give a simple one-word answer, namely: us. At the heart of every conservative endeavor is the effort to conserve a historically given community. In any conflict the conservative is the one who sides with "us" against "them"–not knowing, but trusting. He is the one who looks for the good in the institutions, customs and habits that he has inherited. He is the one who seeks to defend and perpetuate an instinctive sense of loyalty, and who is therefore suspicious of experiments and innovations that put loyalty at risk." ->
"So defined, conservatism is less a philosophy than a temperament; but it is, I believe, a temperament that emerges naturally from the experience of society, and which is indeed necessary if societies are to endure. The conservative strives to diminish social entropy. The second law of thermodynamics implies that, in the long run, all conservatism must fail. But the same is true of life itself, and conservatism might equally be defined as the social organism's will to live."
"Of course there are people without the conservative temperament. There are the radicals and innovators, who are impatient with the debris left by the dead; and their temperament too is a necessary ingredient in any healthy social mix. There are also the instinctive rebels of the Chomsky variety, who in every conflict side with "them" against "us," who scoff at the ordinary loyalties of ordinary people, and who look primarily for what is bad in the institutions, customs and habits that define their historical community. Still, by and large, the future of any society depends upon the solid residue of conservative sentiment, which forms the ballast to every innovation, and the equilibriating process that makes innovation possible."
That is the best definition of conservatism I know, and it does away with that silly small government vs. social conservatives nonsense. Small government is just another part of the effort to "conserve a historically given community" and diminish "social entropy". It is a traditional value. It is a family value. But on its own, isolated from the rest of the effort, it turns from heartfelt cause to dry "principle".
We shouldn't institutionalize something that is by its nature dysfunctional. I don't hate my gay acquaintances or family members. In fact, I can't think of a single one that I even dislike being around. That's not the point. Whether or not we can admit it as a society today, men screwing men is unnatural, abnormal behavior that society has never condoned.
If legalizing gay marriage had no other effect than letting gays tie the knot, then none of that would matter. We (thankfully, and at least in theory) strive to be a free society, after all. Unfortunately for gays, there's no way it wouldn't have negative external effects. More gay adoptions not a bad thing? Implicitly (and explicitly) teaching children that Jack and Jack is just as good as Jack and Jill not a bad thing? Opening the flood gates for polygamy, animal love, etc? Come on, we all know those are things that will hurt society.
Homosexual behavior is a problem, not an "alternative". I'm sorry, gays, if you don't like that. NOBODY likes it. Who wants their friend or family member to have to live life wanting something they know deep down is wrong?
John T. Simpson wrote:
"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."
the NH Senate legalized homosexual "marriage" only after expelling the one guy who objected:
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000010142.cfm
In short, pro-homosexual lawmakers will get rid of their colleagues who won't be coerced to support their agenda.
So, John, will you call out the pro-homosexual NH lawmakers on their Nazi-style tactics? Or will you bow to the god of Liberal Tolerance (i.e., Liberal Fascism)?
no chucklehead here- it is you who want to legislate HIS morality. If you would pay attention, like a good lad, you would grasp the concept of marriage as a 4,000 year old institution designed, once again now- pay attention- to civilize men, protect women, and give children a stable and loving environ with positive role models of BOTH sexes. Only about 6% of the population is gay.
What is there about this that you don't understand? You may not like it, but you should at least grasp the concept.
P.S. Don't know what the hell your talking about 'imprisoning those who peacefully dusagree'
You can do better than this…
This is the Republican case for gay marriage? It's not very compelling. Please try again.
You're blog is a non sequitur. You say "nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government the right to regulate marriage. … Conservatives should be the last people who would dare turn this document into a weapon."
Yes, it is true that the Constitution does not give the federal government the right to regulate marriage. That is why Conservatives oppose the effort by courts to misuse the Constitution to impose gay marriage on states. Who are the Conservatives trying to turn the Constitution into a weapon?
Conservatives think that the question of gay marriage should be decided at the state level, not by the federal government, and it should be decided by legislatures, not by courts.
Sorry sweetheart, but marriage is NOT regulated by the federal government. It is regulated by the states, which ARE empowered to do so, both by the Tenth Amendment and by their state constitutions.
It's that old chestnut. "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't"…………..
If we ignore it, they will label us homophobes and biggots……….
If we address it, we risk losing freedom of thought, choice and religion, All to make a "very small" group happy….
Screwed either way!
This is off topic so forgive me. Can anybody tell me about the Larmine Project and what it is about? I got invited to a play about it.
The comments here just prove that conservatives have lost the argument over gay marriage. No longer do we discuss whether gay marriage is right, should be allowed, etc., but whether it should be decided by states or the feds. Sorry, but when you've been beaten so far into submission that you're talking process rather than substance, you've lost.
So, let's get back to discussing gay marriage rather than federalism. And in doing so, let's begin with the premise that the onus lies with pro-gay marriage people to explain why it should be legal. If someone calls for changing the status quo, they need to explain why.
And let's also begin with a question: why do governments (state, federal or whatever) have an interest or right to involve themselves with marriage to begin with? Marriage predates government. So let's ask ourselves why government got involved with it. When we have the correct answer to that question, we will see that government has no legitimate reason to get involved with marrying people of the same sex. And that doesn't stop gays from holding their own private ceremonies to commit to one another, nor does it stop them from living together like married people do.
The Laramie Project is about how mean nasty homophobes didn't care that Matthew Shepard, a young gay man, was murdered by a couple guys who didn't like that he was gay. Never seen it. Don't plan to. If you want to sit through three acts of people telling you that those who don't approve of homosexuality ALSO don't care when gay people are killed, go for it.
But where do our laws come from? We value human life, so we have laws against killing people, with the exception for protecting one's own life/kids. Laws codify values, and enforcing laws is the same as enforcing values – it's just that not all things/concepts that Americans may value are also laws. So we don't enforce every single value, because to do so would conflict with other things we value, like freedom. However, just because we value freedom, we don't let people do whatever they want because that would conflict with other values, like the right to one's own life.
The debate over the legalization of gay marriage seems to be one primarily about values. Should we allow gay marriage because we believe in freedom? Or should we not because extending that right would have undesirable consequences for our society (such as limiting parental rights by teaching kindergarteners that homosexuality is normal – it seems, from reading comments here, that people who oppose gay marriage are more concerned about what rights they might lose, than with gay people getting married).
In this regard, we value children not being statutorily raped. Should we have the government stop enforcing this value?
Uh… Read the comments posted here and you'll see EXACTLY what she is talking about. Now let's be clear, I don't want to divide the Christian right from the party.
I welcome EVERY citizen who dares to ensure that ALL citizens are treated fairly and are LEFT ALONE from government tyranny.
Ok. I've had enough. Conservatives don't call names like this when trying to argue their point.
You are rapidly donning the garments of a troll my friend. While the title of the post is the Republican case for gay marraige, there is an underlying theme that you are consistently missing.
"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."
I subscribe to this ideal…
"Others believe that being conservative is about electing a government that will defend and enforce “traditional” values."
This is the antithesis of individual liberty.
"P.S. Don't know what the hell your talking about 'imprisoning those who peacefully dusagree'
You can do better than this…"
Let's say that I have a neighbor who enjoys pot. He grows his own in his garage and he uses it after work instead of cracking open a beer.
That person can be imprisoned for years in an institution where he will risk rape, beatings, loss of his fortune and future.
Is that clear enough?
Isn't the Catholic church already lobbying for that?
Sorry, but a stupid comment deserves a stupid response…
My question Dane is what is it in the poor demented "pregnant man's" mind that they even care. Why is it all about her….why does she wake up in the morning wanting to be a pregnant man. These people are so damned narcissistic it's disgusting. Like the octomom they don't care if their kids are born into a circus where they're perceived as freaks.
No one seems to have noticed that Ms. Flynn is talking about the federal Constitution and federal laws–so she's right that the federal government should back off. Laws governing marriage are generally enacted at the state level–see Prop. 8. Personally, I think gay activists should focus on getting civil unions in place if they are really concerned about protecting gay partners. They face far less resistance on this front, as many of the comments here show.
Kadaka: The constitutionally "protected classes" which the Constitution shields from "invidious discrimination" are those based on race, creed, color, national origin, and the specifically civil war prohibition–prior condition of servitude. All others are subject to "reasonable" differentially unequal treatment, so long as the law can be proven to serve a "compelling state interest." That's the short answer. Unfortunately, the long one fills volumes. The meaning and interpretation of "compelling state interest" alone fill volumes.
"Sex" as referenced in the Nineteenth Amendment meant "women" (and by inference, "men"). The gender wars were not even on the far horizon at that time. Essentially, it "uncreated" a special class (i.e., men), and like many constitutional amendments addressed a single issue: voting.
I've seen some strange stretching of the interstate commerce clause over the years. That would indeed be a strange stretch, but no stranger than some of the other overreaching the Supreme Court has done. The case of a single herd of cows in one state affecting interstate commerce by virtue of its "cumulative effect" comes to mind. That one herd was used as a justification for the federal government to intervene in milk pricing. The "cumulative financial effect" of denying certain marriages would not be that much more of a stretch, but somehow I don't think the court will buy into it.
So the argument is essentially that we must support a change in the law on the basis it would enhance freedom?
Freedom of who exactly? What freedom is enhanced by allowing a law whose benefactors challenge religious liberty at every turn?
Gay marriage is a political device designed to stifle liberty, not increase it. Ask eHarmony.com and MA Catholic Adoption Agencies.
Arguements for or against gay marriage aside, I take issue with the idea that we need to stay away from "laws" that enforce "values". All laws enforce some kind of value. Homicide laws enforce the value that you have a right not to be killed. Pollution laws enforce the value that some regulation of liberty to protect the commons, (air, water, etc), is acceptable, etc., etc. The point is – some values are almost universal and some are very controversial. There's no way around that one – (except the messy process of public debate, legislation, and slow cultural change we are currently experiencing).
[...] at Big Hollywood, Maura Flynn has an outstanding post entitled The Republican Case for Gay Marriage. The entire thing his worth reading, but here is the key passage: Me, I implore the Republicans to [...]
a troll? not hardly. We have established a voice of solid conservatism and you really don't understand what the philosophy is- we don't know anyone who is imprisoned for growing pot, unless it's 20 acres or so- and that is usually a minimum security club fed kind of deal.
We don't approve of that either, so your assertion is a red herring, as is the rest of the dribble you posit. It is you- the militant gay lobby- Six Percent of the population- who wants the government, the 'small government' to overturn 4,000 years of civilzed history so you can feel better about yourself…
So, no you are neither clear, forthright, or logical. You do not understand the differences between conservatism and libertarianism, and you are out of your league- a lot- in your hollow debate.
We'd tell you to wise up, but you show no ability to do that. Just emotional rantings because you want… wah!
Sweet! Lets bring on the polygamist and gay-incestual and animal marriages too! What right has government to say anything about who I want to be married to?
Either have marriage and have a line at traditional marriage, or don't have marriages at all. Once the line starts moving, it won't stop. See Canada and the E.U. for examples of this.
Gay men have the same marriage rights as straight men, they may marry a woman. What gay men actually want is a new right, the right to be married to a man and to have it called marriage. You might ask yourself, why, since in many states gay men can enter into a civil union with another man, why do gay men want to have it called 'marriage'? What's in a word? I'll tell you what, it's all about filthy lucre.
A civil union, under the law, is virtually the same thing as a marriage – that's the point of it, after all. But, there is one little area that marriage is different, the issue of 'government entitlement benefits'. For instance, a gay man can't get Social Security benefits as a 'spouse' on his civil union partner's record. The law calls for those benefits to go to someone with a 'marriage license'. Here's a thought experiment for gay men: What if you were offered a deal to call your civil union 'marriage', keeping all the legal rights you now have, but only if you give up the right to receive entitlement benefits based on your spouse's records? Would you take the deal? Didn't think so. OK, how about if you were offered the right to receive those benefits, again keeping all the legal rights you now have, but only if you agree that your civil union will never be referred to as a marriage? Jumpin' on that one, n'est-ce pas? As Rush says, when in doubt, follow the money!
As long as there is a federal income tax break of any sort for being married, let alone that classification existing period, the federal government has a stake in defining what marriage is, for tax purposes if nothing else.
Although if we could force the US government completely out of marriage, everyone files as an individual period, it would be a significant step towards simplifying the tax code, even remaking it into something that works fairly, and fairly well. Maybe that would best be brought up as a "wait a minute" after this issue (or something similar) takes marriage completely away from the national level and leaves it solely with the states where it belongs.
I could understand that about the 19th, the point I was wondering about is if a certain class is specially noted in the Constitution (for which I will presume the 19th is considered as much a part of it legally as the main body) that made it a protected class, if it was important enough to mention then it deserves special attention. The point being if that mention did make sex (gender) such a class, or could be interpreted as such, sexual orientation has received no mention therefore would be "fair game."
BTW, is the ERA officially dead yet?
Race, color, even creed and national origin to a certain extent, how do they keep things distinct with such overlap? Oh wait, we are using liberal-think these days. The distinct one is whatever one will get whatever group what they are demanding, with the class changing as needed.
I agree that people can get a little aggressive with the PC thought police stuff BUT (and, this is a big but) essentially what you have suggested here is that it is fine for you/anyone to punish PC snippy-ness with the denial of civil rights. The two aren't equal!
I think religious bodies can refuse to perform any kind of marriage they want to. I have not heard that gay marriage threatens that. Aren't there Jewish congregations that will not perform interfaith marriages now? And what about all those famous Catholics that get annulments so that they can remarry? I have never heard of any religious organization being sued over this. Seems like a distraction from the issue.
You do not want to know what I once went through researching that line from that treaty while arguing this country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, the Founding Fathers were not a bunch of atheists and Deists who despised organized religion. Yes, I had to do that, the academic indoctrination is strong. Short answer, that was one of those "flowery lines" the treaty writers threw in because it was expected and sounded nice, with zero actual weight and meaning to it.
Learn from the past? Fine, they have both gambling and prostitution in Nevada. What has that done for morals and personal responsibility there? We say we do not want minors to smoke nor drink, yet they clearly have access despite the existing laws. So is there some great benefit from allowing greater "trickle-down" access to hardcore addictive substances?
[...] leave a comment » Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » The Republican Case for Gay Marriage. [...]
When France decided to deny gays the right to marry (and even to adopt), the arguments used were about Human Rights. Their position was that gay marriage places the aspirations of adults over the needs of children. I wonder if the experiences of their neighbors in the Netherlands had anything to do with their decision?
The French are in favor of giving gay couples all other benefits of marriage by way of civil unions.
As stated before, only civil marriages are legally recognized in France.
I'll show decorum when the gay mainstreamers do. My reference was not simply hypothetical. http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2000/Schools/...
Don't delude yourselves. Gay marriage is not about marriage. Gays will hook up or shack up and rarely marry. Gay marriage is all about silencing any objections to homosexual activity, including indoctrination and recruitment. The full status of marriage is merely to allow radicals to say, "Look, we are exactly the same as you in all respects. You cannot judge our behavior. It is 100% legitimate in the eyes of the state and any argument to the contrary is hate speech, so shut up and let us tell your kids how wrong you are and how right we are."
Your lack of argument, dismissal of good faith, and love of name calling clearly establishes your trollness… which makes me wonder if actually acknowledging a troll is as big of a waste of time as actually trolling?
P.s. For your next name, you might want to consider that actual conservatives rarely make pedophilic Catholic jokes apropos of nothing. Just a thought.
Well, actually it's present in many, many animal species. And not just in the form of actual mating, but in the form of actual pair bonding.
So actually, it's natural by definition.
Many people end up in heterosexual marriages before they come to terms with their sexuality. It's not that uncommon, especially in a culture that demonizes gay people.
I am proud to be a conservative, but I am very frustrated with the part of our family that goes after the happiness and liberty of others.
Civil unions do not impart the same benefits as marriage. In California for example, they do afford all the same rights as marriage at the STATE level, but not the federal level. And many other states that allow civil unions do not award all the same rights even at the state level.
The civil union is not really any type of solution unless the rights are uniform across the board and truly equal. There is currently no place in the US where this is the case.
Sure there's a historical case. If we believe America to be a pluristic society (which it is) where people of all different creeds can come together and form a society, then we must acknowledge that in many societies (including the west, way back when) there was such a thing as same sex marriage. The original Americans (that would be native people) actually had such arrangements.
I care about small government, the right for people to choose whether or not they have guns (and what kinds of guns) how and who they want to worship, not having a large precentage of your personal income siezed by the state, a free and strong market and safeguarding the liberty of ALL Americans even if they don't believe as I do, even if they don't like me.
But what I see from the modern day GOP is a bunch of bullies who are aggressively trying to strip a hatred minority of the right to form families the way they choose to form families and throwing out words like "immoral", "unnatrual", "disgusting", as if it were right and place for them to judge. No one can judge anyone else, that is only the right of our Almighty God, whether you believe He exists or not.
Instead of worrying about raising and taking care of your own families, you're out to attack someone else's happiness. Someone else's children. I'm sorry if my saying so makes me unacceptable to the rest of you, but I guess I'd just be one more casualty on the current road to destruction for the Republican Party.
God bless.
I am quite positive that many gay men have children as well, so I'm not sure where you're getting this thing about lesbian rights.
Also, sometimes gay families also involve girl children.:) I'm just saying.
And yet there is no law that restricts gay people from having children of their own through biological means, and moreover since many gay people have the same yearnings for family and children that straight people do, there will always be children in same sex families.
Therefore what France is punishing these children by casting them as members of second class families. Moreover, it seems so strange that people would prefer a needy child have NO family, as opposed to two loving parents of any gender. Who is valuing the rights of certain (socially conservative bullies) adults over the needs of children?
This makes me sick.
Thank you very much (and where were you when I was being called a Heathen or worse, a Liberal)? You are absolutely correct. It's amazing some of the ugly posts on this thread loved Zo and Steve's bad impression of Republicans as seen through the eyes of liberals, and yet that's how they answered some of these posts. I can't believe that anyone would equate the desire for Mary Cheney (I assume she was NOT molested by her father as some have asserted as the cause of Lesbianism) to consider herself 'married' to her partner with anything other than a commitment between two consenting adults who hope to spend their lives together. And to the silly posters who talk of a 'slippery slope' if we did allow marriage between gays- REALLY? The next step to getting government out of marriage is legalizing drugs and prostitution? Give me a break! If Ms. Cheney gets married- how the heck does that hurt you? But, if someone takes any ole drug (or alcohol, for that matter) and gets in a car- then you've got a problem. Finally, to those who think this will lead to people marrying chickens and goats and whatever other asinine argument that was used (oh, yeah- incest)… How is that covered by my original post that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL? Not chickens, not cats and sheep. That might be wishful thinking on some of these commenters' parts, however!
Firstly, referring to you as chucklehead is tame. The level of moaning and whining about name calling that is occurring here rivals that of the libs. Kudos.
That you miss the central argument isn't my problem. I've been very clear. But understanding would require a shift in thinking. It isn't comfortable, therefore you push back against it. I understand. Over time I think you'll begin to see that the brand of conservativism you think you know, is merely the "Heads" to the liberal "Tails" of the same corrupt coin.
Militant gay lobby? Wow, was I that transparent? Lol. Over time you will discover how wrong you are. Personally? I'm opposed to government recognized gay marraige. Then again I'm opposed to government recognized marraige period.
Your lack of understanding of the effects of various "wars" on behavior and free choice tells me that I have my work cut out for me. A true conservative understands that the government is the last solution to ANY problem. Especially when it has the power to destroy lives.
The Republican case for gay marriage
http://hotair.com/headlines/?p=42631
Michael Medved had a good analogy that the government is already involved in marriage – it's called divorce, and the laws that govern divorce. I would add child welfare, domestic violence, and tax deductions.
The Gay Democrats are psycho on this issue. They don't want the government in their bedrooms but they want the government involved in every other faucet of their lives.
Value Republicans view gays as a sin. I think very few Value Republicans buy the notion we can can turn off our homosexuality like we can a light switch. The ones that do buy the notion are very vocal – sort of like PETA with a fax machine.
Being a Gay Republican, I prefer winning gay marriage at the ballot box rather than the legislature or the courts. Only then can gays achieve TRUE equality in gay marriage.
So is infanticide, inbreeding, preying on the weak, leaving the weak to die, etc etc. Stop trying to claim in any way shape or form "animals do it therefore it is natural so we should allow it." Human civilization is about getting away from how animals behave. Keep saying "It is natural therefore it is right" and I get to rip out your throat before eating the hot dog you were holding. And you likely do not want to know what "nature" will allow me to do to any spouse or children you have.
Please, I have long known about the extremists. Redefine "marriage" to include homosexuals, then polygamy or whatever, destroy the institution, destroy religion by taking "marriage" and "family" away from them, etc ad nauseam. It is quite sickening how the extremists want to use the issue simply as a wedge to destroy everything "traditional" with special emphasis on religion period.
This discussion is about the "useful idiots." There are well meaning decent people who advocate gay marriage on the grounds of fairness, and here it is advocated that being conservative (keeping government out) also allows it. From a strictly utilitarian point of view, the argument is about allowing the useful idiots to remain a tool of the social extremists, or to remove the tool in a way that leaves them virtually powerless. We allow marriage exactly as we have it now but don't take notice of the genders, useful idiots go away, momentum is lost. Extremists then would have to raise support for something other than traditional marriage. It will be hard holding the line at that, but it is looking pretty apparent the useful idiot supply is pretty thin for even "no distinction" traditional marriage, they will not get any further.
God says that homosexuality is sinful. Neither party should support or condone sinful behavior.
Mrs. Flynn divides the conservative movement into two camps. The first camp support freedom, individual liberty, and small government. The second camp supports the use of government to enforce "traditional values." She then goes on to argue that the second camp is really not conservative at all because to enforce "traditional values" one has to deny freedom, liberty, and small government. The arguement is wrong on two accounts. First, to be conservative is not to be libertine. True conservatives have never supported the abandonment of social and religious constructs that have been around since the beginning of time. The Founding Fathers clearly knew the difference between liberty and licentiousness. To them liberty meant the ability to do what was right not the opportunity to do solely as one desired without moral restraint.
Second, without "traditional values," freedom, liberty, and small government is impossible. Freedom and liberty that embraces immorality will only lead to slavery. And governments without the traditional values of respect for human life and the acknowledgement that they are stewards only and not the ultimate authority or power, will never be small. To ask for freedom, liberty, and small government but to reject traditional values is to ask for character without virtue.
The rule that only classes based on race, creed, color, national origin and prior condition of servitude are protected.
No, and maybe.
ERA is the amendment that refuses to die. It's been around since 1923, and was an early feminist reaction to the "insufficiency" of the 19th Amendment. Most legal authorities agree that it is a dead issue, but there are always those who think otherwise. Although the Amendment has passed its deadline multiple times, it keeps getting reintroduced in Congress nearly every year. The prevailing constitutional view is that once the final, revised and partially-ratified Amendment deadline passed, further extensions of time would be useless since those extensions cannot revivify the original ratifications going back to 1923, let alone those which state legislatures repealed along the way.
Pretty much the same arguments can be offered for polygamy and incest between consenting adults. Is that part of the "freedom" that we are supposed to buy into, and if not, why not? Once you have destroyed the bedrock foundation for raising and caring for children for literally thousands of years, where and how do you draw the line?
I oppose the legalization of gay marriage on that principle, although I can live with a state by state decision on policy, providing other states are not forced to recognize gay marriages. I'd feel that way even if gay marriage were popular and cost the party votes. Fortunately, numerous polls and actual election results show such a sacrfice is not required. Even in the most liberal states like California, the people went to the polls and voted no. At least twice. It's a net plus for the Republican Party, and, most importantly, it makes sense. No on gay marriage. Let the gay activists shoot themselves in the foot with their repugnant tantrums.
As to the youthful exhuberance for gay marriage, remember that the boomers were all going to legalize marijuana when we grew older and gained power. How'd that work out? For better or worse, it didn't. I'm not convinced that as today's youth ages, matures, gains responsibility, and forms family, the cause of gay marriage may well be far less attractive than building stable homes, families, and communities.
To say that the French government would prefer that a needy child have NO family, as opposed to two loving parents of any gender, seems a big stretch to me. Do you think that heterosexual couples do not adopt needy children?
Do you really think that France, the land of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and the Menage a Trois is full of socially conservative bullies who can't bear to see gay people and their children happy? Where did you develop this seemingly bigoted view? Do you really think that the French government is only concerned about children in a mother/father marriage? Do you think that children of straight French couples who are not married are considered to be in "second class families"? If so, how did the sophisticated French get to be so conservative in their thinking about children?
Of course many gay people have the same yearning for family and children that straight people do. That is what the French called "the aspirations of adults". These aspirations are entirely understandable. Some French gays, the highly motivated ones, will continue to have children through biological means. Most gay couple in France who now have children probably had them in a previous heterosexual relationship.
The question you have not seriously addressed is, "Why does the French government think that defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman fulfills the needs of children better than sanctioning same-sex marriage would?" See if you can think about this question without automatically ascribing evil motives to the French government.
What if the answer has more to do with the faults of straights than any characteristic of gays? What if the French government is worried that straight men will get the idea that they have no special role in the family, for example? If all a child needs is two loving parental units, Dad is expendable. Any loving adult could fill his role. A fine excuse to avoid engagement in a family. I read several years ago that reluctance of men to marry was a big problem in France.
I think "Dave Konig" had it right. Opposition to gay marriage is a bit like opposition to the death penalty.
Yes I can see the arguements against it. Is such a traditional word like marriage appropriate for decided non-traditional relationships? Does stretching the word devalue it? Does it lead to allowing incestous marriage?
But . . .
When two, good decent people want to make their relationship "official" and enjoy the legal protections that such a relationship enjoys; whether you call it marriage or civil partnership, my reaction is: Yeah, you go for it!!!
Stopping two good and decent people from having this just because they are both of the same sex . . . it just looks petty and mean spirited.
I'm an independent voter, and have cast votes for both sides. I think it would be interesting for the Republicans to make my suggeestion a plank in their party platform:
Democrats seek to grant "marriage" to gay couples so that they can have the legal spouse benefits of marriage. On the surface seems to be an honorable gesture, but it is, in fact, unfair.
While this position is spun as providing equal rights to gay and lesbian couples, it is in fact discriminatory against heterosexual couples who, for personal reasons, don't believe in marriage. Kurt Russell and Goldi Hawn are a famous example of this type of couple who raise their children, but never marry. I count three such couples among my friends. Shouldn't these committed and loving heterosexual couples be given spousal rights like homosexual couples?
What about same sex couples that are not gay? For example, two sisters who live together, and one works while the other stays home with both sets of kids. Why shouldn't the stay-home sister and her children be covered by the working sister's medical benefits? They are domestic partners, only they are not having sex. Their relationship is likely to last longer than most marriages.
What about a mother living with her unmarried daughter, so that the daughter can work outside the home while the (grand)mother stays with her grandchildren? The (grand)mother and daughter have a domestic partnership, but they are not gay lovers. Why not give them a tax break and allow the (grand)mother to have health benefits from her working daughter's insurance policies? This would be good for the family and the economy.
The same could be said for two brothers, or a father living with a son.
The Republicans should endorse the following position. Anyone who goes to the courthouse and becomes "domestic partners" (under a well defined legal requirement) would qualify for spouse benefits, no matter if they sleep in the same bed and have sex or not.
If the Republican Party comes out with a full equality, equal opportunity, level playing field "domestic partner" proposal, it could be a game changer.
In support of their morality and the culture wars, it would protect "marriage" as a classically defined religious term, limited to ceremonies performed by a priest, rabbi, minister, et cetera. All marriages would receive a "domestic partner" status for tax purposes.
Such a plank in the platform would alter the classical Republican position, but would be a big tent move, opening up government social support mechanisms to 21st century lifestyle realities. It would make an interesting counter-move in the game of politics.
Euphemism and misdirection are the Gaystapo's favorite tools for recruiting the useful idiots. My "lapse" of decorum is simply a reminder of what they are really up to. Yes, gay radicals – and the cry for the right to marry is radical and not an item of serious interest for most gays, who are already free to co-habitate as they wish – do go into graphic descriptions of fisting (they use that word) to school kids while making sure the parents don't learn about it.
Your claim that interracial marriage (miscegenation) was never systematically banned in this country is irrelevant in the face that gay marriage has never been systematically banned in this country either. The difference between gay marriage and interracial marriage is, the federal government actually HAS stepped in and declared that states don't have to recognize other states gay marriages. So what about norms? In the 1950's, _almost_ 100% of whites were against white-nonwhite "miscegenation," but ultimately by the 1960's it was decided that the laws violated the 14th Amendment. More people were against interracial marriage by the time it was recognized as constitutionally protected than are against gay marriage/civil unions right now.
If Gays have a right for mariage they deserve epidural and moterhood leaves too.
Sorry, I mean "motherhood leaves "
Cool, so now I'm gonna go to work naked, bare my teeth to anyone who looks at me funny, piss on stuff I want, and have sex with any female that I can make submit to it. A hell of an arguement. Proven fact that in nature the act of an animal mimicing the sex act on another of the same gender is a matter of establishing dominance, not a sex act. This is most often what is pointed out as the example of homosexuality in nature. As far as pair bonding, I want a link.
You are not interpreting Jesus's words directly. Which is typical….of so many who want their cake and eat it to. Tell me if a man started punching your 9 year old son would you judge him? According to your theology you can't. Stupid
You can readily Google the term and find sanitized descriptions from trusted sites, and then there is Google Image Search with Safe Search filtering off. At some point we must admit parental responsibility is now more important than ever.
I can't tell if you are criticizing or agreeing. There used to be surreptitiously taped audio posted online of one of the "Fistgate" indoctrination sessions in which the speakers did anything but sanitize the matter for their young audience. Unfortunately the audio has been removed by court order (the perps sued to have it taken down!), but I listened to a few minutes of it when it was still up and distinctly remember one of the instructors cutely discussing "the calorie count of cum" to the kids. These radicals are emotional wrecks who know they are not how they should be. They are so weak that they can't even think how they might transcend their problems, so they seek to drag everyone else down to hell with them. They prey on kids in their formative years who don't have the maturity to make good judgments or the strength of character to resist peer pressure on even the most absurd matters.
These sick radicals are the wolves at our door. Unfortunately, too many people of good will are naively leaving their doors wide open for them to just walk in.
According to Discovery magazine in animals there has been a gene identified as related to homosexuality. Animals without the gene always express heterosexuality. Animals with the gene are as equally likely to express heterosexuality as homosexuality. The article did not express that the studies explained why. That being said it goes to my point that to define sexuality in these terms limits the potential mating of people. If you know why Discover is wrong let me know.
If "welfare" is such a great ability to help with propagation then why is it that children of orphanages do not fare as well as children with biological parents raising them. You argument actually proves my point. By raising there children together parents can ensure that they gain the best advantages and the best ability to survive.
continued
The typical things that we condemn society for in the treatment of gays (gay bashing, insulting, violence etc.) ironically works to influence them to marry to have normal lives. If might be argued that such unwanted behavior has developed to ensure this happens. An alternative form, such as pairing of homosexuals forming partnerships to have children, could enfcourage this need for survival in a way society might accept. I know everyone does not like this but I am sorry I think the problem is inherent in our genome and any solution that does not recognise this won't work, whatever it is.
You miss my point.
If two gay men have a Civil Union, Bonding is a nicer word, then they are free to Marry the opposite sex for the purpose of raising children if that is their desire. If the Bonding is a marraige then they are not.
Which plan would allow these individuals to mate and produce offspirng of their own genetic makeup.
The point of hating children is not relavant. Even if they "hate" children it is still Ideal for that couple to mate. Just as it is not ideal to have a proscribed social policy that influences "gays" to never mate.
To equate a homosexual relationship with a heterosexual one is to take freedoms away from homosexuals not to grant them freedoms. This is the true irony of this argument. I understand both sides disagree with me. But I have thought it through and still think I am right. Oh Well…………
[...] central tenet of Republican philosophy—and how belief in decreased federal regulation precludes any national legalization or prohibition of gay marriage. Meanwhile, independent voters who [...]
[...] Flynn is one such person who has made a Republican case for gay marriage featured on Big Hollywood. This is in response to her argument. I ask you to also read it – to give her a just [...]
re: same-gender pair bonding in animals: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/...
re: same-gender pair bonding in animals: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/...
[...] Flynn is one such person who has made a Republican case for gay marriage featured on Big Hollywood. This is in response to her argument. I ask you to also read it – to give her a just [...]
[...] at Big Hollywood, Maura Flynn has an outstanding post entitled The Republican Case for Gay Marriage. The entire thing is worth reading, but here is the key passage: Me, I implore the Republicans to [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.