Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
This week on the podcast, a double shot of big guests. First, our old pal Dennis Prager stops by for some cogent views on SSM, religion, and why it’s important to link and fight for both.
Then, Ricochet contributor Rick Wilson gives perhaps a more pragmatic view on the issue from the perspective of someone whose job it is to win elections. Who is right? Tell us in the comments.
Also, Rob Long’s personal Jaws, and James Lileks’ ongoing contretemps with his French brother-in-law.
Music from this week’s show:
The Beast by Milt Buckner
EJHill has us wired.
The Ricochet Podcast opening theme was composed and produced by James Lileks.
Help Ricochet by supporting our advertisers!
Get a free audio book and 30 free days of Audible on us! Go to audiblepodcast.com/ricochet today
Sign up today for Hillsdale College’s new FREE online American Heritage course. Go to Ricochet.com/Hillsdale
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
A question for Rick Wilson and others who say we must change the GOP position on gay marriage for electoral reasons: 1) Do the polls which show strong majorities of young voters indicate that the only thing keeping them from voting Republican is its position on SSM? If not, your solution isn’t really addressing the problem. 2) For the GOP, will SSM become like abortion for the Democrats, where formerly pro-life politicians had to evolve if they wanted any support from the national party? Will those who don’t support SSM still be allowed in the party? And finally, and most importantly 3) If the GOP follows your recommendation, do you really think the left will say “OK, now that the GOP had folded on this issue, we’ll have to stop talking about it”? If you think they will stop demagoguing the issue, please explain why contraception, which hasn’t been an actual issue in over a generation, became an issue in the last election.
Milt Bruckner? Is that a joke? It’s Buckner.
I must say that it is hard to make an argument for the sanctity of traditional marriage when your spokespeople are Rush Limbaugh and Dennis Prager.
No offense, they seem to be fine fellows- but not exemplars for the cause.
A few states having passed SSM and some bad polling is hardly a fait accompli. Lucky for the world you weren’t in command of the allied forces in 1940; I mean, Germany had already captured the continent so why bother fighting them, right?
Duane Oyen, Prager’s argument is the only one that makes sense with a secular government. In any case, it’s moot because gay marriage is a fait accompli; a subset of conservative’s FAIL to articulate conservatism (aka sanity).
Not a joke, a typo. It’s fixed now.
No one addressed the basic point I made- Prager and Rush are not the icons of marriage that support our side. Their points may be valid- sadly, the messenger tends to outshine the message.
I’m not going to rehearse the errors we made on this- we should have promoted a legal domestic partnership 10 or 20 years ago because that is the actual legitimate fairness argument. The current push is for universal acknowledgement to make people feel normal, what Shelby Steele described as “ordinariness”.
But regarding polling, etc., what happened in Minnesota last November was not an endorsement if gay marriage, it was the public riding Obama’s coattails to reject an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment. And putting that on the ballot was a dumb move. There is still no gay marriage in Minnesota.
Perhaps, but I don’t think it’s a failure to articulate conservatism… and frankly, basic moral standards… as much as it’s a case of the population simply becoming more decadent. At some point, you’ve got to stop blaming yourself for not getting the message out, and get the Ark boarded up before the rains come.
Still wondering why so many smart people are scratching their heads about why young adults don’t seem to have a problem with SSM. It seems pretty clear to me that the line was crossed years ago when male-female promiscuity was promoted, endorsed, and celebrated by the culture of cool. This was in contrast to the often violated but universally respected notion of morality informed by 2000 years of Christian thought, which taught that physical intimacy was to be enjoyed but limited to men and women as husbands and wives.
The automobile gave freedom to hide the act, the Pill gave the opportunity to mitigate a consequence, abortion gave the excuse for men to be more predatory, and post-modern philosophy rendered all standards as useless constructs. To a young adult who is unable to see that deviance from the traditional standard before they were born, (and whom see unregulated intimacy without consequence as their birthright) it is a much shorter jump for him to see SSM as perfectly normative as well. Add to this a uniform effort by the culture to hide all the consequences of the culture of promiscuity, and you have today’s debate.
Continued:
As with abortion, we are going to watch SSM slowly gain more ground in the culture, because most people can’t debate past the “It’s just icky,” point. Until we recognize that we are all walking around in a state of ready arousal and willing to sell our good life of liberty and duty for the mess of pottage that is the culture of immediate pleasure, we will not see gains for the side of traditionally defined marriage. BTW, its not just the young adults who have this problem, its just them that get most of the “benefits” of the wild life.
I will continue to argue for tradition, hopefully able to debate coherently and point out the facts from personal health, wealth, societal, and macro-economic perspectives about what a train wreck this is going to be, both for the individuals involved as well as American society. Like the debate over abortion, there will be lots of losses initially, and then my grandchildren will have lots of social science to back up what the traditionalists always knew. OR…. we just may end up rending our grand experiment into tatters, and it won’t make a difference anyway.