Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
There is an important chart everyone needs to see:
There are two trend lines, one is going down and one is going up. There may be a couple of bumps, but the direction of each line is clear. That is the future.
Tuesday night, Maine, Washington, and Maryland passed laws legalizing gay marriage and the one banning it in Minnesota lost.
That's the future. Look at those trend lines again.
You can object. You can talk about "redefining" marriage. I've heard it all before. But look at that trend line. That is the way the United States of America is trending. That's where the public is at. You need to adapt or conservatives will keep losing elections.
I know most of you reading this have very strong feelings about gay marriage. I'm not going to argue about your feelings, your belief structure, or what you think. All of us here at Ricochet have done that plenty of times.
What I am going to do is suggest a change for conservatives, one that I first encountered out of the mouth of a man who I know to be, frankly, a bigot.
Here is the solution: The separation of marriage and state.
Marriage is a lot of things, among them a legal contract. As it stands now, one needs a license to get married. A license is legal permission to do a thing. We license marriages now, but we did not always. It doesn't need to be licensed. Many of you will think of practical objections. "What about X?" There's always a solution for X.
Separating marriage from the state doesn't mean the end of marriage. It means the end of getting permission from mommy government to do a thing that is a natural right of free people to do.
Separating marriage and government means that how I feel about gays and gay marriage and how you feel about gays and gay marriage don't matter politically. We can both be on the same side without either of us compromising our belief systems.
It's also not an electoral loser.
- Comment (250)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (20)
Comments:
May '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Tom Meyer
My understanding is that it depends on how SSM is enacted. If it's passed legislatively, it's much easier to ensure protections against coercion; if it's handed-down judicially as a due process thing, it's much harder.
Given the HHS mandate, I think Catholics are right to be paranoid in this subject. · 3 minutes ago
Forcing a church to perform a same sex marriage would be such a blatantly obvious 1st amendment violation that I don't even think Ginsberg would go along with that, certainly not Kennedy.
Jan '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
The King Prawn
It's the last one that homosexual unions are really after, though less from a legal sense than simply as a matter of honor. Everyone honored marriage before the state licensed it. Those in favor of SSM think that if the state licenses homosexual unions that the same honor accorded to marriage by society will come to them as well. I don't think it will happen. People know there is an organic component of marriage that cannot be replicated by contract law.
More on topic, looking at trend lines doesn't determine what's right or real. I feel like a parent asking "if all your friends jumped off a bridge..."
Okay, again, what does state involvement do to increase marriage rates? Again, I think the universal acceptance provided by state licenses has value, but I don't see what it's going to do -- or has done -- to improve marriage rates among the underclass.
Edited on November 9, 2012 at 4:29pmMay '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Tom Meyer
katievs
You are calling for the state to replace natural, spiritual bonds with arbitrary, contractual bonds. You're not seeing what that really means. You are calling forAmericato stop recognizing and upholding marriage as an institution.
You are calling for America, as a nation, to abandon reverence for God and the natural law.
Katie, I honestly can't believe someone who self-identifies as a Burkean would write something that so clearly implies that America and government are synonymous. The government ceases to do something and that means the country, the society, and the people have turned their back on it? Wowzers. · 20 minutes ago
In America, "we the people" require that the government respect and protect natural law.
The abolition of marriage would be the de facto end of that arrangement.
Instead of being a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, we'll be at the mercy of the all-powerful State.
May '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Cornelius Julius Sebastian
Divorced status isn't actively on the agenda to be a protected class under the civil rights laws the way SSA is. In fact by regulatory policy and/or state/local statute/ordinance it already is. That opens the salient to force churches to do so under equal protetion grounds. It is a very real threat to religious liberty. · 3 minutes ago
Being a woman is a protected class under the civil rights laws. Are they forcing the Catholic church to ordain female priests?
May '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Richard
Tom Meyer
My understanding is that it depends on how SSM is enacted. If it's passed legislatively, it's much easier to ensure protections against coercion; if it's handed-down judicially as a due process thing, it's much harder.
Given the HHS mandate, I think Catholics are right to be paranoid in this subject. · 3 minutes ago
Forcing a church to perform a same sex marriage would be such a blatantly obvious 1st amendment violation that I don't even think Ginsberg would go along with that, certainly not Kennedy. · 3 minutes ago
Like "after birth abortions"? Their prime advocate holds an ethics chair at Princeton.
SSM would, not very long ago, have been such a blatantly obvious offense against the natural law and against God that no one would have taken seriously the idea that it could become the law of the land in America.
Edited on November 9, 2012 at 4:33pmJan '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
If you can't imagine how someone can disagree with you, and so anyone who disagrees with you must be a racist sexist homophobe, then you're too immature to waste reason on anyway.
Second, if they think we're really racist sexist homophobes now, do you really think that a "surrender" on this issue will fool them that we've changed?
I doubt it.
Sep '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
What non-religious basis can you base an argument that marriage between a gay couple and marriage between a straight couple is different?
i understand and respect that your faith is a huge part of your life, but for the majority of this country it simply isn't. The battle to change that needs to be waged in hearts and minds, not by forcing government to refuse to recognize something an overwhelming majority of people under 35 support.
Sep '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
I don't see religion ever making a comeback in the Western world. From my PoV, it served three principal functions:
Dec '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Tom Meyer
The King Prawn
It's the last one that homosexual unions are really after, though less from a legal sense than simply as a matter of honor. Everyone honored marriage before the state licensed it. Those in favor of SSM think that if the state licenses homosexual unions that the same honor accorded to marriage by society will come to them as well. I don't think it will happen. People know there is an organic component of marriage that cannot be replicated by contract law.
More on topic, looking at trend lines doesn't determine what's right or real. I feel like a parent asking "if all your friends jumped off a bridge..."
Okay, again, what does state involvement do to increase marriage rates? Again, I think the universal acceptance provided by state licenses has value, but I don't see what it's going to do -- or has done -- to improve marriage rates among the underclass. · 11 minutes ago
It's just the wall around the garden, not the fertilizer.
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
KC Mulville
Well, I think we're all nervous because of places like Canada and Europe. Mark Steyn has written about it extensively.
Having caricatured the issue into one of bigotry, the "tolerant" ones now say that opposition to gay marriage is evidence of bigotry. Then, they march to the next assumption, i.e., that anyone who publicly opposes gay marriage is a bigot - and soon we have hate crime prosecutions.
It isn't silly. It's already happening elsewhere.
The time to stop that train is before it leaves the station. · 12 minutes ago
The singular religious liberty not in question is whether priests would be forced to marry any couple. That's not an issue. But literally everything else is. And mostly it relates to individual religious liberty. No need to look for Canada -- there has already been a hate crime trial based on a woman declining, for religious reasons, to photograph a same-sex ceremony in a state where marriage is defined traditionally!
Jan '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Just to throw in an obvious point, but is worth repeating.
One reason why the state has some interest in marriage is that it does set up a legal relationship. The spouses are jointly and severally responsible, which means that in a hefty number of situations, the spouses are functionally considered a single unit.
Wait - to be clear ... a single legal unit.
Should the state get involved in everyone's love life? No. But when some entity has to (for example) disentangle a property dispute where the legal liabilities include spouses, there are practical reasons for the state to be involved.
May '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
I believe that heterosexual marriage is the fondation of our society but that government should get out of the marriage business entirely. Marriage is a personal and religious decision that the state should have no interest in. That means taking away the tax advantages for married couples. I'm for anything that reduces the influence of government in our lives. It's the right thing to do and it's a winning electoral issue as well.
Edited on November 9, 2012 at 4:49pmMay '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
katievs
Richard
Like "after birth abortions"? Their prime advocate holds an ethics chair at Princeton.
SSM would, not very long ago, have been such a blatantly obvious offense against the natural law and against God that no one would have taken seriously the idea that it could become the law of the land in America. · 2 minutes ago
Edited 1 minute ago
You are talking about Dr. Singer? When did he get appointed to the supreme court?
I've had professors with all kinds of interesting views. So what?
I don't think society has been evolving for quite sometime. 300 years ago black people were legally 3/5ths a person and women could not vote. Not very long ago society pretended that gay people basically didn't exist. Society acknowledging that there are gay people is a relatively new phenomena. I don't think we are worse of for making that acknowledgment.
Edited on November 9, 2012 at 4:49pmRe: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Great Goldwater's Ghost!
What non-religious basis can you base an argument that marriage between a gay couple and marriage between a straight couple is different?
i understand and respect that your faith is a huge part of your life, but for the majority of this country it simply isn't. The battle to change that needs to be waged in hearts and minds, not by forcing government to refuse to recognize something an overwhelming majority of people under 35 support. · 9 minutes ago
This is the tragedy of the discussion. People form opinions without reading the arguments. Read this religion-free argument, for instance.
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
I'm not sure what I believe about marriage law, but when I began thinking about these issues, I was in the "get the state out of marriage law" camp. I hate to state the obvious but there is no movement for this. None. Zilch. It's fantasy land. I hate even debating it, policy preference of mine though it may be, because it's like talking about how fairies are going to take us to find the pot of gold.
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
I was just thinking about how Obamacare combined with marriage redefinition could have some interesting results. For instance, how will the creation of children be handled under Obamacare. If a heterosexual couple gets benefits for every child they conjugally produce, will marriage "equality" mean that same-sex couples have "rights" to children? (We tend to think of the rights of parents in these matters as opposed to the rights of children) If so, how will they be obtained, etc. Might mean some interesting discussions about the ethics of ART, sperm-cup dads, etc. etc.
Mar '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Yes! Another gay marriage thread moves to the Main Feed!
Nov '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Keith Bruzelius
I don't believe that Fred is saying we should support gay marriage.
He is saying that Government should not be involved, so it could never be illegal for my church or your church to saywe will notapprovegay marriage.
If the State is out of it, we will keep them out of it, and no lawsuit or pressure will change it, unlike now, where soon, a court will decide that a pastor has to perform a gay marriage, or go to jail.
The real problem is all the existing laws, and how to un-entangle marriage from the State. · 50 minutes ago
That is precisely what I'm saying. Thank you for stating it so well.
Jan '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
KC Mulville:
One reason why the state has some interest in marriage is that it does set up a legal relationship. The spouses are jointly and severally responsible, which means that in a hefty number of situations, the spouses are functionally considered a single unit.
Wait - to be clear ... a single legal unit.
Should the state get involved in everyone's love life? No. But when some entity has to (for example) disentangle a property dispute where the legal liabilities include spouses, there are practical reasons for the state to be involved.
Okay, that makes total sense. I'd also imagine it'd do hell to the court system, as everybody starts suddenly declaring themselves to be married to the defendant.
Fred, it seems that government accreditation/certification of marriages provides an easy means to enforce reciprocity. What kind of emergent structure would be created to fill this function and how would it be better than the (rather benign) state power to do so?
Nov '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Okay, you win.
Not because you're right, but because the rising line on your graph thinks you're right.
So please do marry your brother, or your father, or even your goat if it pleases you.
You and your brother together can marry your goat for all I care.
With modern genetics, pretty soon you, your brother, and your goat can have" kids" together. Or will you call them "baahaahaahbies"?
Whatever.
No need to bother with a chart showing a rising number approving interspecies marriage. No need to bother explaining how goat marriage has nothing to do with pedophilia marriage, because, like I said, you win.
Just don't expect me to like gay marriage, or goat marriage, or gay goat marriage, or to be pleased about paying for the resulting social, economic, psychologial, moral, and medical misery.
But you will expect me to pay for it. And you will even expect me to pretend to like it.
Irrational of me to talk like this? Maybe a little. But why not?All rational arguments have failed . . . because your graph is such a powerful rebuke to rationality.
Poor, tired, Kate. Still inclined to fight the good fight.
Edited on November 9, 2012 at 5:07pm