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
Keith Bruzelius
Richard
Is there a movement in the LGBT community that wants civil unions and not marriage?
I know 19 year old "Glee gays" (Not sure if that's been used before) that posted on FB to the effect that if you vote Yes (MN Marriage amendment) you should unfriend me, basically because they will only accept approval, not just tolerance.
...
I could be overstating it, but I kind of doubt it.
Are you really complaining about a 19 yearold unfriending you over a political difference?
And I thought you were talking about the GLBT community wanting the government to force you to approve. Which I don't think giving a certificate to gay couple is doing that anymore than giving one to a couple of divorcee's marrying is forcing the Catholic church to approve.
If it is only that I'll just say this, you don't have to approve of gay marriage or homosexuality, but gay people don't have to friend you on Facebook either.
I think you are overstating it.
Edited on November 10, 2012 at 12:50amAug '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Sabrdance:
Henry I of England felt compelled to legislate on marriage laws in the Charter of Liberties. State has been involved for a long time.
Indeed he did:
Given the manner in which he so legislated, the title of the document is terribly ironic.
May '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Keith Bruzelius
Richard
Keith Bruzelius
What's more disturbing to me is that one of them knows better, is a TEC graduate (kind of a Lutheran thing "Teens Encounter Christ") and Rector and is teaching other kids that the gay lifestyle is OK with Christ.
People are free to have their religious views and their own take on scripture, if someone's take doesn't mesh with yours you can go to another church.
Maybe there are parents that want their kids to go to a church that says Jesus approves of gay people or gay sex or whatever "gay lifestyle" means, they can go to that church and you can go to another. There are no shortage of churches in the US with all kinds sorts of variations on Christianity.
Jun '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
William McClain
Joseph Stanko
That would include polygamy, correct?
Myself? I have no moral qualms with arguing that a family relies on symmetrical balance of parental power, and I have no moral qualms with saying that polygamy does not meet that line, while arguing that a same-sex couple can exercise this balance. I also have no moral qualms about distinguishing between the inherent nature of duality over multiplicity in this balance, which separates polygamy and polyamorous relationships from relationships based on sex.
This is your personal moral view? Or does this argument affect the sorts of marriage contracts the state should or should not recognize?
Oct '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Joseph Stanko
This is your personal moral view? Or does this argument affect the sorts of marriage contracts the state should or should not recognize?
It has no bearing over the issue of contractual rights. I can't delineate every boundary of contractual relationships to minutiae in this format, but I can say that civil contractual relationships have no bearing over what the state "should or should not recognize." Maybe a group of people will determine to pool resources in an approximation of polygamy, I actually have no moral problem with people deciding to share their legal rights in unique formulations.
But these contractual relationships in my hypothetical have no bearing on what is or is not morally considered marriage. You asked whether my definition of marriage as a cultural institution included polygamy, and I answered that my definition does not preclude moral definitions that restrict polygamy. Not surprisingly, 200 words does not allow me to provide a full moral defense of my view - though if you give me enough time and space, I will be happy to.
Again, in this hypothetical the issue of the state is irrelevant. The issue at stake is what civil society and culture accept.
May '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
William McClain
It has no bearing over the issue of contractual rights. I can't delineate every boundary of contractual relationships to minutiae in this format, but I can say that civil contractual relationships have no bearing over what the state "should or should not recognize." Maybe a group of people will determine to pool resources in an approximation of polygamy, I actually have no moral problem with people deciding to share their legal rights in unique formulations.
But these contractual relationships in my hypothetical have no bearing on what is or is not morally considered marriage. You asked whether my definition of marriage as a cultural institution included polygamy, and I answered that my definition does not preclude moral definitions that restrict polygamy. Not surprisingly, 200 words does not allow me to provide a full moral defense of my view - though if you give me enough time and space, I will be happy to.
Again, in this hypothetical the issue of the state is irrelevant. The issue at stake is what civil society and culture accept. · 2 minutes ago
Maybe you should start a new conversation.
Jun '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
William McClain
It also goes towards the argument of marriage as tradition, given that polygamy is certainly, in some cases, even older than the tradition of one man and one women.
Give me a break.
The argument that marriage is "traditional" is not an argument that whatever form of marriage is oldest is therefore the best.
The argument for tradition lies as the heart of conservatism, at least as I understand conservatism. It is an argument that there is such a thing as an American way of life, an American culture, that is a unique and special and fragile thing worth conserving. It is an argument in favor of the tried and true. It is an argument against being overly hasty when redefining bedrock institutions of our society.
Feb '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Misthiocracy
Ed G
But the opposition to SSM has no effect on the ability of individuals to form contracts with one another. Opposition to SSM - the legal marriage structure, really - is entirely to do with how society will interact (or not) with individuals.
With respect, I believe you are confusing "society" with "the state".
.....
No, I'm aware of the distinction between society and the state. Are you aware of the connections between the individual and society and between society and the state?
Oct '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Richard
Maybe you should start a new conversation.
Yes, I problem should. Regrettably, not tonight. It's quite late here in Germany, and most of what I can say on this topic without an expanded word content has been said. I'll save it for this coming week.
Oct '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Joseph Stanko
Give me a break.
The argument that marriage is "traditional" is not an argument that whatever form of marriage is oldest is therefore the best.
I only reference traditionalist arguments extending beyond American society because they are common to formal moral arguments against same-sex marriage, and it was in defense of why my particular definition of marriage was not exclusively vulnerable to charges of supporting polygamy.
And I agree in your definition of American traditionalism, and appreciate your desire to see bedrock institutions conserved. While we argue from different perspectives in some ways on how those institutions ought to be arranged (which, I'm sorry, should be allowed even among conservatives), everything I have argued for here is because I believe the preservation of our culture should be in the hands of American culture itself, and not in the hands of the state.
I will hope to continue discussion with you at some other time, and allow for a clearer distinction of my views over time.
May '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Joseph Stanko
The argument that marriage is "traditional" is not an argument that whatever form of marriage is oldest is therefore the best.Give me a break.
The argument for tradition lies as the heart of conservatism, at least as I understand conservatism. It is an argument that there is such a thing as an American way of life, an American culture, that is a unique and special and fragile thing worth conserving. It is an argument in favor of the tried and true. It is an argument against being overly hasty when redefining bedrock institutions of our society. · 0 minutes ago
Help me out here, I'm confused. Are gay marriage advocates arguing that the more traditional opposite sex marriage should no longer take place?
Maybe people look at that "tried and true" thing called marriage and say, you know, gay people could really use that. I think there is something Conservative about taking traditional marriage as a model and emulating it as much as you can.
Feb '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
William McClain
.....
I believe the preservation of our culture should be in the hands of American culture itself, and not in the hands of the state.
.....
You speak as if the state has nothing whatsoever to do with the culture. Is that also your belief?
Aug '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Misthiocracy
Sabrdance:
Henry I of England felt compelled to legislate on marriage laws in the Charter of Liberties. State has been involved for a long time.
Indeed he did:
Given the manner in which he so legislated, the title of the document is terribly ironic. · 1 hour ago
Not to get too far off topic, but I don't see the irony. Compared to the previous system where the Kings of England could tell their knights and barons exactly whom to marry and when, a standing rule that -so long as the marriage meets basic political standards -the marriage will be approved is an increase in liberty. And given what aristocratic marriages entailed, it's not an obviously bad law.
Oct '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Ed G.
You speak as if the state has nothing whatsoever to do with the culture. Is that also your belief? · 1 minute ago
Of course not, because we as individuals participate in both. Nor do I believe that the social order I see as ideal and worth striving for is the social order as it really is now. This debate is philosophical, and as I've said elsewhere none of what I've argued for here should be taken as an endorsement for those with differing or conservative social views to drop their values - anything but.
Nevertheless, I do believe we would do well to work to disentangle the aspects of society we assign to the state from the aspects of society we assign to culture in any way we can - for both of their benefits. I believe that a political life restricted to legal rights and a free spiritual and cultural life would thrive together not in their being one and the same, but in their independence and relationship. Our morality will always flow into our legal rights, and vice versa, but I do not believe they should be collapsed to one condition as the Leviathan State.
Aug '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
They always ask the question the wrong way. The issue is: "Do you think that everyone should be required by law to treat relationships between same-sex couples as identical to traditional marriages?"
Sep '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Mrs. Hemingway,Richochet's respond function is not allowing me to include your text or include paragraph breaks so I apologize in advance for the run-on fashion of this post. I promise it had paragraphs.Wikipedia defines marriage as "A social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship." I can't claim to have any objection to this definition. Because I know it will come up, I'll say this now: certainly any response re: the definition of marriage is going to contain something about procreation. I absolutely agree that the best arrangement for the raising of a child is one man and one woman in a committed, loving relationship. The problem with basing a definition of marriage on procreation is that there are many marriages that are, by definition, non-procreative. Should a post-menopausal woman be denied the right to marry? What about a man who had testicular cancer, leading to the removal of said organs?The anti-SSM position is Todd Akin-level toxic with Under-35's. If SSM were an evil on the level of slavery or late-term abortion, I'd have no objection to standing firm against it. SSM simply isn't an evil of that sort.
Jun '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Richard
Help me out here, I'm confused. Are gay marriage advocates arguing that the more traditional opposite sex marriage should no longer take place?
Maybe people look at that "tried and true" thing called marriage and say, you know, gay people could really use that. I think there is something Conservative about taking traditional marriage as a model and emulating it as much as you can. · 1 hour ago
It's a fair point.
In that respect, at least, the leftist proposal to redefine marriage as union of two people regardless of sex is far more conservative than the libertarian proposal to completely scrap all the laws now on the books that pertain to marriage, divorce, and family.
Letting same-sex couple marry would arguably have very little effect on existing traditional marriages. Stripping away all of their legal rights and benefits in an effort to "separate marriage and state" would have a major effect.
Jun '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Misthiocracy
I would imagine that if they don't take the time to negotiate and sign some form of marriage contract, they would have no legal recourse and no legal rights later on should the partnership collapse, just like any other non-married couple.
As such, it would clearly be in their best interest to negotiate and sign a legal marriage contract.
Presumably, they would not have to write one up from scratch. Just as each church has its own template for marriage vows, there would presumably be plenty of template contracts a non-religious couple could choose from. · 4 hours ago
There's one aspect of this proposal I do find rather intriguing. As as come up on many prior Ricochet SSM threads, marriage has been under assault for some time now, and I believe that no-fault divorce did more damage to traditional marriage than SSM ever could.
Now I don't see a movement to repeal no-fault divorce gaining much traction. But, if we moved to a system such as you're proposing, conservative couples could easily opt to choose a more binding contract that excludes no-fault divorce.
Oct '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
An additional note on tradition: Many young Americans born in the 1970s and 1980s that I know would tell you that the right-to-choose embodied in Roe v. Wade is an ingrained part of their tradition and way of life. If pro-lifers do not succeed in changing the law and the moral direction of the country, their children and their grandchildren will only feel more and more justified to call abortion rights tradition.
I think it's a noble ambition to conserve traditional institutions, but from what point in time? From 1776, to include the traditional institution of slavery? From 1900, to include the all-male vote? From the 1950s, to include segregation? From 1980, to include abortion rights?
Ultimately, people want a moral defense for the positions we take, and an appeal to some nebulous way of life will forever leave conservatives open to every line of attack used against them in this last election.
I concede that same-sex marriage is not a resolved moral good; I do not think it is settled. I am not conceding that any discussion about marriage rests ultimately somewhere in the context of tradition and is institutionally rigid.
May '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Pretend for a moment that I find your marriage to be morally objectionable (assuming you are married), for whatever reason I might have. How is the law currently compelling me treat your marriage equally with other marriages, let alone even acknowledging that it is a marriage?