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:
Nov '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
You consider one thing arbitrary, I consider the other. Is it more or less arbitrary to tell a gay couple who has been together for decades "I'm sorry, you can't get married. That's only for straight people."
But rather than you force your views on me or me on you, lets eliminate the state's power to impose its arbitrary will in this regard.
Why do you insist on being a statist, Katie?
May '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
katievs: My friend Maureen Ferguson has a thought-provoking item at NRO's symposium, lessons learned.
She points out that Ohio Catholics voted for Romney over Obama, 55-44% If Catholics had done the same nationally, Romney would have won.
The "life issues" people had a much stronger presence in Ohio than elsewhere. They made a point of informing Catholics about what Obamacare really means, and so forth.
Those who are urging Republicans to drop the moral issues have it exactly backwards. · 35 minutes ago
It might have something to do with Ohio Catholics being mostly of the non-hispanic variety.
May '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
I don't need a government license in order to marry. If the state were tomorrow to declare my marriage null and void, I would say, "In your dreams," and "over my dead body."
What I demand is that the state not use its power to assert that my marriage is nothing more than a legal contract, not to be distinguished in law from a contract between any two men or any two women.
The reason I demand it is that I see its denial will involve the swift wreckage of society, just as every blow to marriage culture has hastened our descent into chaos.
Jun '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
katievs
Brian Watt
Well, when Akin chose to fight on the moral front he displayed his ignorance about the human reproductive system and confirmed for some, who had earlier dismissed the false notion that there was a war on women, that perhaps Republicans were unfeeling about women in general and women in particular who were raped. ...
I've been thinking of a post on this point. If thoughtful, articulate, sophisticated pro-lifers muffle themselves, then the pro-life causes will be identified with inarticulate bunglers.
The reason Akin hurt us isn't because he's pro-life; it's because he's ignorant and arrogant and egotistical.
Pro-lifers need to get busy uncovering the reality that abortion is rejection of motherhood and violence against women.
By all means, promote more intelligent and articulate candidates who can promote the value of potential human life. No argument there. That said, Democrats have shown time and again that they are adept at using abortion, gay marriage and other "social" issues to take Republicans off track. Meanwhile the national debt and the potential for fiscal meltdown proceeds at a faster clip.
May '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Brian Watt
That said, Democrats have shown time and again that they are adept at using abortion, gay marriage and other "social" issues to take Republicans off track.
Yes. So, our choice is to cave or to fight. So far, the Republican establishment has chosen to mostly cave. Be as minimally pro-life as we need to be to keep the coalition together. It's not working. We are losing the culture war. And culture trumps policy.
Nov '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
An intractable difference of opinion. This is why making private things (marriage, adoption, private contracts, what people eat or drink or smoke, education, most other things) into public things, and therefore political issues, makes us all more divisive as a society.
The Cato Daily Podcast had a good things on this today.
It was called Politics Makes Us Worse.
May '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Marriage is emphatically not a (simply) private thing. It is the bedrock social institution. See Jonah.
For the state to declare that it has no bearing, no importance as a public good, would be exactly like the state declaring in law that from now on, all bank accounts belong to it. Nothing is outside its reach.
Edited on November 9, 2012 at 3:38pmSep '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
katievs: I am probably at least in 90% agreement with you. However; in a democracy the government reflects the values of the governed. The majority of Americans have rejected God and the trend toward rejecting marriage is a refection of this. "You cannot serve God and Mammon" - the American people have clearly chosen mammon and the trend lines are a lagging indicator of this. Your fighting the right fight, but SSM is the wrong battlefield.
Nov '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
katievs: I don't need a government license in order to marry. If the state were tomorrow to declare my marriage null and void, I would say, "In your dreams," and "over my dead body."
What I demand is that the state not use its power to assert that my marriage is nothing more than a legal contract, not to be distinguished in law from a contract between any two men or any two women.
But when you involve the state, Katie, that's all it is is a contract. Its not spiritual. It's not personal. It's not special. There are few standards. What the state issues are licenses to contract.
Why do you require the state sanction your marriage? Why can it only be valid with the approval of the state?
Why do you require the state be involved at all?
Is marriage so fragile an institution that, despite thousands of years of history to the contrary, it cannot survive without the squalid hand of the state giving its rubber stamp sanction?
May '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
It would be like the state issuing a decree that from now on, in America, gold shall be worth no more than paper.
Nov '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
You're not listening to what I said, Katie. I'm not saying that the state should declare all marriages null. I'm just saying that it should stop requiring people to get permission.
May '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Fred Cole
But when you involve the state, Katie, that's all it is is a contract. Its not spiritual. It's not personal. It's not special. There are few standards.
That's just libertarian reductionism. It's not reality. See Jonah.
What I require is that the government respect and defer to the truth about marriage.
It is very fragile. Very much imperiled. Not because it is weaken in itself, but because it is a high moral achievement. It has been very much degraded in recent decades. See Charles Murray.
May '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Fred Cole
You're not listening to what I said, Katie. I'm not saying that the state should declare all marriages null. I'm just saying that it should stop requiring people to get permission. · 1 minute ago
You're not seeing what that really means. You are calling for America to stop recognizing and upholding marriage as an institution.
You are calling for the state to replace natural, spiritual bonds with arbitrary, contractual bonds.
You are calling for America, as a nation, to abandon reverence for God and the natural law.
Edited on November 9, 2012 at 3:29pmJun '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
katievs:
(1) A strong marriage culture issues into strong, self-standing individuals . . .
(2) A weak marriage culture leads to an overbearing, interfering, all-powerful state.
(3) . . . marriage is a higher and greater and truer and more natural form of human communion than the state.
(4) The government is duty-bound to honor it, and serve it.
(5) When (Government) instead tries to master marriage, by degrading it to the level of a mere legal contract, it de-legitimizes itself.
(1) True, whether or not the State is involved.
(2) True, where we are now.
(3) Also true, but relevant to #5 and licensing.
(4) The State has no honor. It is a band of thieves, writ large.
(5) That's part of the argument. Gov't has already de-legitimized itself. By licensing something, you declare that without State permission, it is illegal to do that thing, putting the State over that thing, instead of supporting that thing.
As an aside to Fred's point on marriage, I think there will come a time, soon, where the Church will have to renounce all status with the State, Pastors will renounce their licenses or be forced to perform gay marriages.
Jun '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
katievs
Brian Watt
That said, Democrats have shown time and again that they are adept at using abortion, gay marriage and other "social" issues to take Republicans off track.
Yes. So, our choice is to cave or to fight. So far, the Republican establishment has chosen to mostly cave. Be as minimally pro-life as we need to be to keep the coalition together. It's not working. We are losing the culture war. And culture trumps policy. · 7 minutes ago
My choice is to choose my battles wisely and not be drawn into ambushes that will decimate my forces. If an officer presents himself or herself who can take the upper hand on these issues and win the day and win the battle I would promote them but I would still need to be convinced that focus on these issues chart a realistic path for winning the greater war.
We shall see how fiscally depressed America is by 2016. At that point same sex marriage may be a quite insignificant issue if Americans by the millions are living in tent cities, shanty towns, on the streets, or in cardboard boxes under freeway overpasses.
Jan '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Fred, you're implying that opposing gay marriage isn't as important as other things, so let's drop our opposition to make sure we get agreement on other, more important things.
I don't buy the argument that we can trade off "issues" like they were Baltic or Mediterranean Avenue. From a merely practical point of view, I don't think it will work. Leftists don't trade. The history of leftist appreciation is that they'll take our caving on gay marriage, and simply move on to attack the next moral taboo - that's what they call progress.
Yes, it's true that the opposition to gay marriage is lessening. And yes, it's true that Republicans could use more votes from demographic or interest groups. But I doubt that dropping opposition to gay marriage will actually lead to more votes from anyone.
Do you really expect most of the gay community to turn Republican, just because we support gay marriage?
As I said elsewhere ... Dick Cheney supports gay marriage. They hate him more than anyone.
May '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
KC Mulville:, you're implying that opposing gay marriage isn't as important as other things, so let's drop our opposition to make sure we get agreement on other, more important things.
I don't buy the argument that we can trade off "issues" like they were Baltic or Mediterranean Avenue. From a merely practical point of view, I don't think it will work. Leftists don't trade. The history of leftist appreciation is that they'll take our caving on gay marriage, and simply move on to attack the next moral taboo - that's what they call progress.
Yes, it's true that the opposition to gay marriage is lessening. And yes, it's true that Republicans could use more votes from demographic or interest groups. But I doubt that dropping opposition to gay marriage will actually lead to more votes from anyone.
Do you really expect most of the gay community to turn Republican, just because we support gay marriage?
As I said elsewhere ... Dick Cheney supports gay marriage. They hate him more than anyone.
I think Republicans should support gay marriage because it's the right policy. Now I know that is a novel idea.
Nov '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
My parents taught me that to be successful in life, look at what the rest of the world is doing and do the opposite. Thanks for a graphical representation that I'm on the right track.
Nov '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Baltic and Mediterranean with a hotel on each makes passing Go a real nail biter.
But you are right. Liberals don't trade (except with each other). Rob McKenna running for governor in a still undecided race for the governors mansion here in Washington, has said time and time again that he is pro-choice, but his opponent ran nothing but ads attacking him on "women's issues."
KC Mulville:
I don't buy the argument that we can trade off "issues" like they were Baltic or Mediterranean Avenue.
Sep '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Trend lines don't dictate principles. You know what else did well on the ballot? Wealth redistribution. How is your argument any different than George W. Bush's argument for compassionate conservatism? "Liberals are cudgeling us with our failure to spend on social programs. Let's take the club out of their hand by capitulating to them."