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, we take on one of the most debated topics on the site: gay marriage, religious freedom, and what the issues mean for the future of the Republican Party. We do it with two guests from opposite sides of the issue: Rod Dreher is an author (read his new book How Dante Can Save Your Life: The Life-Changing Wisdom of History’s Greatest Poem) columnist, and one of the brightest thinkers in social conservative media. On the other side, Ricochet member Jonathan Gilbert, a gay conservative writer from Los Angeles. What follows is a passionate, intelligent, and (most importantly) respectful discussion on gay marriage, religious freedom, and how the two might coexist. In other words, it’s a shining example of what we mean when we say Ricochet is the home of civil conversation. We hope you’ll tune in.
Music from this week’s episode:
Let’s Call The Whole Thing Off by Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong
The opening sequence for the Ricochet Podcast was composed and produced by James Lileks.
Oh, hell EJHill.
Yes, you should absolutely subscribe to this podcast. It helps!
Help Ricochet by Supporting Our Sponsors!
This podcast is brought to you by Harry’s Shave. For the finest shave at the best price, got Harrys.com and use the coupon code RICOCHET at checkout.
Get premium mattresses for a fraction of the price delivered to your door! Casper is revolutionizing the mattress industry by cutting the cost of dealing with resellers and showrooms and passing that savings directly to the consumer. Get $50 off your first purchase! Go to Casper.com/Ricochet and use the coupon code RICOCHET at checkout.
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.
No. This conversation is going nowhere without an answer to that question.
It’s simple you see. I agree in principle with everything you said in comment #58.
But those are your problems. I just happen to agree that your beefs are legitimate. I have no interest in them myself and, in fact, I am making a concession against my own interest in even acknowledging the legitimacy of your beefs.
So if in return you are making it your business to ensure that I remain in dhimmitude, under the laws of the government that takes my tax dollars at the point of a gun, then I have more important things to worry about than your beefs. There might even be a bit of karma in the fact that the government you seek to use to oppress me is turning instead on you. What’s good for the goose . . . as I said.
At a minimum, your problems with that government are not high enough on my priority list to worry about when I’ve got my own problems with that government, and you out there prodding it to make more of them for me.
So, Cato, start a new thread entitled: “Please weigh in on the legal redefinition of marriage issue — I want to know who is loathsome”. And then ask them to identify themselves if they are not using their real name. And then never talk to them again AND try to motivate the government and their jack-booted thugs to either force people to SAY that they like you or get them put in jail or sued into penury. The thing is you have to find out who to hate. That’s the important thing, evidently.
Nevermind.
If by “right to marry” you mean the right to use the state to force
The answer is no.
I thought so. You pretend interest in the issue that almost everyone here is opining on and yet you say at the end, after suckering us in:
What a statement! These are not my interests alone — many people have these same interests, minorities more than most. I am against preferential treatment and for equal treatment under the law. Personal treatment need not follow and we all have the right to our personal beliefs.
BTW, if you start a new thread to ask people to opine on the subject of whether they think the redefinition of marriage is a good thing — then, I will then answer your all important question.
The thing is, we all know by now, especially after having participated in so many SSM threads on Ricochet, that that “loathsome” remark isn’t simply a throwaway line. It’s an indicator that no matter how intellectually this matter is approached it comes down to the moral aversion reserved for bigots. I’ll admit that the same dynamic is at work on the traditional marriage side.
Now you invoke “groupthink” and Cato invokes “two minute hate” as if unthimnking emotion is the only factor here. Yeah, we already know where this is all headed and that’s precisely why we’re all worked up. There is a substantial non-religious and non-bigoted argument to make. It’s been made several times yet so many continue on as if they’ve never heard it. It’s frustrating especially because it’s not new. I’m asking seriously: was Ryan Anderson not available? He’s made good arguments right here on Ricochet before: here, here, here, here, and here.
So unless you’re mind is closed to anything other than Gilbert’s summation of “loathsome”, then please do not avoid SSM threads. Ignore vitriol and engage the actual arguments.
This strikes me as a terrible thing to say. I do not understand why people on Ricochet reacted the way they did–so far as I can tell nobody here is intimidated for holding on to the orthodoxy on marriage, to say nothing of anything else. People should be allowed to speak up for their point of view so long as we do not think they are our enemies. Are they our enemies, to be mistrusted the moment they open their mouth or their mouths utter something at which we prick our ears?
As for the other business, shall we get along or agree, so long as marriage is a question of rights–which I dislike intensely–there can be no agreement between those of us who hew to the old opinion & those who, whatever they may think of us, will not offer us support or will seek our defeat. Marriage is not negotiable–give that up & nothing else will matter. Do not we see this is old opinion, which deserves our veneration, is being destroyed, along with the communities who hold on to it? There is a minority forming here. We need good tactics & alliances. Should we not be defiant with a manly grace?
TT, it’s not Ricochet — it’s the wider world that’s being discussed ON Ricochet.
Yeah, but how is this any reason to take it out on members, especially on the podcast? If you talk to them like you’re talking to me now, fine, have at it-
I raised an eyebrow along with everyone else, but did not say anything. When I saw people were talking about this fellow, I was pleased. When I read what was said, however, I started wondering whether I should be defending a perfect stranger. Some of the things he said seemed silly to me, but that’s neither here, nor there–& they might be good for the podcast. I’d’ve been happy to engage in a vulgar contest of mockery! One relishes the dance with the CoC bull! But really, I started feeling like I have to go to war of a sudden. You guys riled me up far worse than he, I guess, because I agree with you, or at any rate, we’re on the same side of the question. I really do not like that. & you cost me several great opportunities to joke about the gay vote. They involved pop culture references. Do you know how rare that is? We can quarrel with people who ridiculously disagree with us any time for the next generation. Had not we better look to pacing ourselves? I’m not young enough for non-stop rage….
Thanks to the hosts, Jonathan, and Rod for conducting the most civil discussion I’ve ever heard on these issues. That being said, a few reactions to the podcast:
Gilbert’s use of the word “loathsome” was not a mistake or a throw-away line. It was deliberate and Rob, Peter, and James should have confronted him for it before the conversation continued. The fact that it wasn’t poisoned the well for the remainder of the discussion and left the question hanging in the air: “So Rod Dreher is loathsome?”
State level RFRAs are necessary because of the City of Boerne v. Flores ruling in 1997.
The question as to whether one would attend a gay wedding is not only personal, as the hypothetical of that question and other similar questions (would you cater a gay wedding?) is being used as a litmus test, and is having real world consequences if the answer given is unacceptable to those asking the question (cf. Indiana pizza parlors). It is a litmus test question and in a strangely inverted way a religious test question, as reactions to the answer are not a dispassionate acceptance of a person’s personal beliefs, as there is only one right answer. The wrong answer means one is unfit for public office and results in varying degrees of marginalization from the public sphere.
Collective guilt is a blunt instrument used to cudgel individual members of a larger group into submission. Rod should reject its use against him.
Are the “Catholic” adoption agencies funded by the state? That determines my answer to your first question. The answer to the rest is “no.”
To Larry and (I think) EJ:
You are absolutely right that you are being judged by your answer to the question “would you attend/cater/whatever a gay wedding?”
It would help in these discussions if we distinguished between the legal right to decline, and the opinion others may form of you if you do.
Mr. Gilbert’s comment, I believe, went to the latter, and you cannot unhypocritically hold yourselves out as advocates for your own rights of conscience, while objecting if he (or who am I kidding, I) form negative opinions of you based on your words and deeds.
Have at the negative opinions all you want. That’s going to always be with us and it is part of being a human being and men of good will can handle this easily until your negative opinions are being used to convince the government into acting on your behalf against me because of those negative opinions.
Cato, you are not the kind of person we are worried about. I hope you see that.
Political radicals of all stripes push too far in my opinion. Gay people have come a long way into forcing the government to stay out of their lives and to stop incarcerating them and punishing them. This is just simple defense of basic rights. We just want the over-reaching to stop. Gilbert strikes me (probably most of us) as a radical pushing too far.
Well then you should consider that you will get more of me and less of Gilbert if you stop trying to use the state to deny us equal legal rights. It denies you the high ground when you press your legitimate complaints, and subjects you to the charge of hypocrisy when you complain that radicals on the other side are invading your legitimate interests.
Same here. I’m hoping he does check and isn’t put off by the comments.
I do not believe there is any peace to be had here. I should hope your side loses, & that the defeat sticks. I do not believe you understand what marriage means to Christians & conservatives. Are you at least aware that even thinking of marriage in terms of rights is really, really new, & next to meaningless to those of us who hold on to the old way?
It is better, I think, to lose many allies & elections than to give up on this issue. In importance, politically, it is close to abortion. I should hope more conservatives will come to see how much their communities depend on the old way; that there will be someone to tell them about it & to clear things up for them when they are caught in this new language created for this political fight, as if that mattered more than everything people held dear before.
TT, I agree that people will treat this as a serious fight for a long time to come. This is not an issue that can be resolved.
Cato, gays and lesbians have all the rights in the world to marry and have for decades. You want to redefine marriage and to stop the government from giving preferential treatment to heterosexual couples. I like that preference because it’s good for children but I would be willing to give up this whole thing if radicals would agree that these government preferences (laws) applied only to people with children. That’s the state’s interest. Let’s not redefine marriage legally just give preferences for families. Then we can keep the dictionary unchanged for most of us and you can print your own dictionaries for gays and lesbians.
The rest of the marriage laws can be covered by civil unions — even for heterosexuals without children.
But, I know this will not work because radicals are totalitarian by nature and insist on being liked — as a bully is liked with people behind their backs laughing and hating them. But, bullies have the power so no one can say they don’t like them in public. In fact, we are all going to be required to take a loyalty oath about this some day.
Let’s not blame totalitarians. Let’s blame squarely the American obsession with rights. Whatever the tactics or deceptions, the big deal is, can you tell Americans that marriage is some kind of right, & it’s because of something to do with who you really like, for sex, but also because you’re good human beings, & you want to be good human beings together.
There is no way to get around the thing–people want rights & they have no care to ask what is the ground of rights or the political meaning of them. So let’s not blame the totalitarians.
I will predict that you are wrong. My side will win, and there will be peace. Ten years from now the movement against same sex marriage will be more like the bitter enders who supported Wallace in 1968 — small, fringe, and dying out — than the anti-abortion movement, which is stronger 40 years on than it was the day Roe was issued. 40 years from now there will be no movement against same sex marriage. Certain churches may still not perform them, but an accommodation will have been reached in which churches are free to live their creed, but the state recognizes the equality of gay and straight.
Those are my predictions. But only time will tell.
Um, does anyone have a favorite translation of Dante to recommend?
So would gay couples with children be permitted to marry/”get the preferences” under your proposal?
Soon after his introduction, Jonathan Gilbert states:
He uprooted his own argument and lost the debate right there, in several ways, though nobody called him on it.
Anybody want to deconstruct that paragraph? There’s a lot going on there.
I had intended to comment unfavourably on Jonathan Gilbert’s arguments, but other commentators have so effectively beaten him up that I now feel quite sorry for the guy.
Nonetheless: it seems clear, what my own experience suggests, that the idea of ‘compromise’ is laughable. Where would one compromise? “SSM is right”, and there’s an end of it. I know plenty of people who genuinely can’t fathom an argument against it.
Interesting world, isn’t it? According to my priest, there are still kids in NYC kicked out of home for being gay… And, according to Mr Gilbert, I should think of my parents as loathsome people.
http://ricochet.com/podcasts/the-podcast-from-hell/comment-page-5/#comment-2826669
My recommended translation of Dante is the version by Dorothy L. Sayers, because I love her.
Hard to have a discussion when you take this as a given. I mean “you” in the broad sense. How can we talk about equal legal rights when so few are first willing to talk about what civil marriage is. And I don’t mean “what marriage is” in some immutable or inherent or unchangeable sense. I mean as it has been, as it is, and as we would like it to be. Is it something that people do? I don’t think it is. Is it something that is conferred on you by someone else? I think it is.
We can’t get past this simple question. So we’re stuck on you claiming that I want to stop you from doing something while I claim that what you do (and are free to continue doing) is not what we have been calling marriage, is different than what we have been calling marriage, and does not serve the purposes that society intended to serve by conferring any status at all.
One way to please everyone is to recognize that there are new or additional societal purposes to be served and that the best way to do it is with a new institution which is distinct from marriage. Marriage with beefed up obligations on the participants (eg eliminate no fault divorce) and civil partnerships which don’t demand permanence and exclusivity yet make provision for POA type powers and easier inheritance and other pooling of interests conc
Ed I’m happy to talk about the purposes of marriage. In fact, we already have and I agree we should. But as you know, I’m not satisfied with the answer that “the sole and exclusive purpose of marriage is to provide a stable family for children therefore no gays allowed.”
That answer is both over inclusive and under inclusive. Marriage has multiple purposes and has always had among its purposes some which have nothing to do with children, and even if children were the sine qua non, there are heterosexual couples without children and homosexuals couples with them.
On top of that no one has made an even colorable argument that admitting homosexuals to the institution will harm children or the institution.
As far as a new institution goes, the time for that was back when the SoCons were still complaining about the judicial activists who struck down sodomy laws. Simply put, on the eve of victory, and having had to fight tooth and nail every step of the way, few on my side are interested in compromising on anything short of full equality.
Here’s an idea to get more members: Put all of your podcasts on YouTube but give members an ad free version (only free of YouTube ads that is, Harry can stick around) and make the member version available a couple of days sooner. This way you’ll get some ad revenue from YouTube and you’ll get more people to become members to avoid the ads and to get the podcast earlier. You have great content but as long as you give it away for free without any perks for members most people won’t pay up because there’s no benefit to paying.
Yes, just like now and has been the practice for the last few decades.
What you are missing in my description is what the government does about this. The government just stays out of the issue of marriage, its definition and preferential treatment for anyone, except for people raising children, who can be loaded up with legal responsibilities (that the courts can rule on) and benefits that follow the children.