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:
Jun '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
katievs: Here's Jonah . . .
Katie, as I commented on another post.
I think one of the most important thoughts in his piece is that "the State" and "Government" are two different things. It really impacts on the marriage issue.
Government comes by the people. (the consent of the governed) "The State" is the entity of government that often tries to rule those it should govern. One example is the GM bailouts, where the Rule of Law was thrown out so the Unions got all their pensions and benefits, and bondholders got pennies on the dollar or nothing. When "the State" disregards the Rule of Law it de-legitimizes itself. We, as a people should hold it in check, but when a majority of the people support the predations of "the State," "Government," of the people, by the people and for the people ceases to exist.
. . . In our current system, "Government" is no longer strong enough to protect us from "the State."
Jun '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
KC Mulville: ...
Do you really expect most of the gay community to turn Republican, just because we support gay marriage?
Is that the issue, really? Some in the gay community are already Republican. Others are very fiscally conservative and are opposed to unrestrained government spending. Are gays the only ones who support same sex marriage? It's clear that even though some Americans don't necessarily approve of gay marriage, they don't think it's evil and feel it's not worth getting all hot and bothered about...especially when they're just trying to find employment or survive.
Dec '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Fred, you assume that either a) society has no interest in marriage, or b) the interest society has in marriage is not great enough to justify applying the monopoly of force that is government. Please spend some time in America's third world, also known as the inner city, and tell me why society has either no interest or only a non-compelling interest in marriage.
Jan '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
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.
May '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
There is something appealing to the idea of having the state just get out of the marriage business. However I don't know if all the "What about X's?" can all be solved. And I'm not sure we would all agree with the answer of how we solve them.
What about spousal visas for people who marry non-citizens? Should gay couples get them? Right now they can't, even in states were SSM has been legalized because of DOMA. I would say yes they should, maybe Fred would say yes as well, but what would katieves say? I don't think we avoid that conflict.
There might also be some complications for all people who get married in the US and want to move to non-US citizen spouse's country if they don't have a marriage license issued by the state.
Aug '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
The fact that the trend line is negative doesn't mean it will continue to be so. When Roe v. Wade was decided it was assumed that the issue was settled. 30 years later a majority oppose the unrestricted access to abortion that is current law and I believe that opposition will continue to grow. I suggest we have 2 concerns with this issue as we continue to oppose it. First, we have to keep this issue from being decided by the courts. That way as reality sets in there will be valid political options for winning back support for marriage. Second, we have to ensure that where legalization happens it doesn't translate into an expansion of discrimination laws that push opponents of gay marriage out of the public sphere. Instead of being on the defensive we need to actively support a legal strategy to highlight the bigotry and suppression of religious freedom of the pro-gay marriage forces.
Apr '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
That seems rather contrarian.
Katievs: It seems to me that by taking Fred's advice it would make it easier to combat the spread and legitimacy of SSM. By removing marriage from the government sphere you thrust it back completely to the level of other socially sanctioning bodies, like churches. It would seem simpler for you to make the case against it at that level. Sometimes to win a battle you have to give ground in order to be able to fight on a more favorable terrain. Right now everything is set against you, from a practical stand point.
Jan '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
That's my default position in this -- I'm not with Fred on this; at least not yet -- but I'm not entirely sure what government involvement in marriage has/is/will/can do to improve the situation. Unless I'm missing something, the benefits of state involvement in marriage are financial (through joint filing) and in terms of recognition (everyone must legally honor your marriage). That last one seems important, but I can't quite put my finger on exactly why.
Jun '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
KC Mulville: Fred, you're implying that opposing gay marriage isn't as important as other things, . . .
I don't buy the argument that we can trade off "issues" . . . The history of leftistappreciationisthat they'll take our caving on gay marriage, and simplymoveontoattack the next moral taboo - that's whattheycallprogress.
Yes, it's true that the opposition to gay marriage is lessening. . . . 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?
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 say we will not approve gay 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.
May '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
And I get accused of thinking all people who are opposed to gay marriage are bigots, even though I have said no such thing.
How am I a bigot and how am I suppressing religious freedom?
Dec '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Tom Meyer
That's my default position in this -- I'm not with Fred on this; at least not yet -- but I'm not entirely sure what government involvement in marriage has/is/will/can do to improve the situation. Unless I'm missing something, the benefits of state involvement in marriage are financial (through joint filing) and in terms of recognition (everyone must legally honor your marriage). That last one seems important, but I can't quite put my finger on exactly why. · 3 minutes ago
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..."
Jan '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Richard
I think Republicans should support gay marriage because it's the right policy. Now I know that is a novel idea.
That's fine, but it's a different argument from what Fred is suggesting. Fred is suggesting (I assume) that the GOP should stop opposing gay marriage, not for any internal reasons good or bad, but because it will persuade others to vote with us who would not have voted with us before.
I doubt that dropping opposition would bring much, if any, electoral benefit.
May '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
This notion that churches are going to be forced to perform gay marriage is silly. Are Catholic churches forced to perform marriages for divorcees?
Jun '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
katievs
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
(1) You're not seeing what that really means. You are calling forAmericato stop recognizing and upholding marriage as an institution.
(2) You are calling for the state to replace natural, spiritual bonds with arbitrary, contractual bonds.
(3) You are calling for America, as a nation, to abandon reverence for God and the natural law
(1) No, He's calling for the Church to recognize and uphold marriage. America is free to follow or get out of the way. (and it's mostly getting out of the way)
(2) It already has, Fred is calling for it to end.
(3) For the most part, looking at Murray, again, it already has.
When our "Government" has caved to "the State," we need to take away the power "the State" has over us.
Jan '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
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.
Apr '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
What do you suppose the trend line for abortion looked like in the years leading up to Roe v. Wade? I am sure the Supreme Court in 1973 thought it too could see "the future" from opinion polls. As then, we are living in a moment of liberal ascendancy, and that rising tide is lifting a lot of boats.
Jan '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Brian Watt
Is that the issue, really?
No - the current issue with Fred is whether dropping opposition to gay marriage would bring a significant amount of votes to the GOP. I seriously doubt that.
Besides, you also have to compare how many you would gain versus the number of people who would drop out of the GOP because they'd feel that the GOP was now willing to trade principles instead of standing for them.
Of course, we can have a legitimate debate (and have, often) about whether the issue is worth standing for, on its own merits. But that's a different point from the one Fred is making.
May '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
KC Mulville
Richard
I think Republicans should support gay marriage because it's the right policy. Now I know that is a novel idea.
That's fine, but it's a different argument from what Fred is suggesting. Fred is suggesting (I assume) that the GOP should stop opposing gay marriage, not for any internal reasons good or bad, but because it will persuade others to vote with us who would not have voted with us before.
I doubt that dropping opposition would bring much, if any, electoral benefit. · 2 minutes ago
I think it might help on the margins if Republicans can also make the case that Democrats are driving us off of a fiscal cliff. More voters might be receptive to that argument if they didn't think Republicans were racist sexist homophobes.
Jun '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
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.
Jan '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
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.