Hating the "Sinner"

Gay marriage and social conservatism

Do those of you who cluster around urban areas have some hereditary aversion to limited government or fiscal conservatism?

Doubtful.

And since you brought it up, it's social conservatism that will most often turn those with secular sensibilities away from the right. Even within the movement, a libertarian vs. social conservative debate has roiled on forever. This dynamic is only going to change when political expediency becomes a force more powerful than faith—which is to say the day after we pay off the national debt.

Now, it's true that social conservatives can be unfairly ridiculed as bigots in these debates. But sometimes, as it happens, they act like bigots.

When, for instance, a bunch of influential organizations decide to boycott the Conservative Political Action Committee yearly confab simply because a gay Republican group named GOProud happens to be participating, we have stumbled upon such a moment.

As Peter Wehner of conservative Commentary magazine noted, "the boycotting organizations come across as defensive and insecure, as if they fear that their arguments cannot win the day on the merits." It's worse. The boycott demonstrates a lack of any argument. For some, apparently, it's not really the policy sin but the sinner him-and-himself that's the real problem. (I know, it's not technically in the Good Book.)

Though I support gay marriage—more specifically, removing government from the marriage business altogether—it strikes me as deceitful to dismiss legitimate arguments for preserving traditional marriage and ugly to smear everyone making them as homophobic Neanderthals.

Yet, really, what can one say about a person who won't attend a political event featuring 70 disparate groups—including, yes, The John Birch Society—because he or she might be sitting a table or two away from a lesbian infiltrator who agrees with him or her approximately 90 percent of the time?

As Hot Air's Ed Morrissey recently pointed out, the GOProud agenda is perhaps a point or two off the conventional conservative agenda. Actually, it seems to me, GOProud is more focused on the fundamental problems facing the country than the Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council are.

Then again, these groups will probably tell you the kerfuffle is about far more than gays. The popular right-wing conspiratorial website leading the charge has even cooked up a transcendentally silly (and retroactive) theory that claims CPAC is now under the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood. Quite convenient, I say, because it allows someone to point out that one of the many quirks about religious fundamentalists is that they make no distinctions between politics and religion or personal behavior and individual freedom.

Speaking of which, let's remember that last year, leading GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee skipped CPAC, explaining that the event had become "more libertarian and less Republican."

"Republican" must be a code word for those who have sworn their rock-ribbed allegiance to the entire consecrated GOP agenda. Others won't be engaged or debated or shown the errors of their decadent ways, I suppose.

Which is a fine way to bring down your own party or, if that party happens to smarten up, your own cause.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his website at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • JT||

    Foist!

  • ||

    Is Foist a believer/supporter of Foism..? And if so, forgive my ignorance, but what might it be that Foists believe. And is the correct slang term for one a "Fooie" (like Commie is for communist)?

  • JT||

    But, anyways....

    I love that they're mad about the Muslim group now, but they already used up their boycott because of the gays.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Next time I'll start my Republicans for late term abortion group just to see how long we can keep em boycotting.

  • Thomas O.||

    Yeah, that's the weakest excuse for a boycott. Cuz we ALL know that Islam LOVES gay people.

  • ||

    Whew. A gay marriage thread. This should provide a welcome break from the stale cliches and repetitive redundancy of the Loughner threads.

  • Chong||

    Come on man where are the stoner article. What's more important than drugs?

  • But I repeat myself||

    repetitive redundancy

  • Zeb||

    Yeah! Magazines should figure out what the most important thing is and then report only on that one thing and never on anything else.

  • Realist||

    There can be a number of important issues. I would think a blog called REASON would be able to distinguish between what might be important to mankind and what is not!

  • ||

    Drink!

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Have you heard the Muslims are trying to build a mosque near Ground Zero?

  • ||

    Whaaaa?!?!?!?!?!?

  • ||

    Whoop dee frickin' doo.

  • Almanian||

    Sure. Sarah Palin's snuffing 9 year olds and crushing little kittehs and puppehs with her high heels, and Reason wants to divert us from the REAL issues with this post about teh GAiz?

    I don't THINK so. They're not foolin' me...

    SARAH PALIN'S SNUFFIN' 9 YEAR OLD GIRLS (and crushing kittehs and puppehs) AND NO ONE'S TALKING ABOUT IT!!!!

    Plus, Mosque of the Red Death at the Sacred Ground Zero!!!

  • Almanian||

    Barely - great minds, etc. etc. etc.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I am glad for those gays enjoying wedded bliss. Government recognition of any marriage, however...

    (Cue a certain someone accusing anyone not supporting full-throated support of government-approved gay marriage as homophobes.)

  • Suit||

    He brought AIDS to the company picnic!!!

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    It seems somehow appropriate to use the phrase "full-throated" in this context.

  • Barney The Frank||

    That's the way I like it...Uhh huh!

  • ||

    I was listening to one radio show this morning where some caller said all gays are Liberal. According to the Log Cabin Republicans, the GOP got 31% of the gay vote in the 2010 mid-terms. GOProud, another gay Republican group, had Ann Coulter has their guest speaker of honor at their annual convention last year.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's not that all gays are liberals, all true gays are liberals, and the rest are traitors.

    Just as all true blacks are Democrats, and the rest are traitors.

    No True Scotsman

  • But I repeat myself||

    Just as all true blacks are Democrats, and the rest are traitorsUncle Toms

    FIFY!

  • sarcasmic||

    thanks

  • Just to be clear||

    ...if said Black Republican is one of the ones flying the Dixie flag and reassuring people that the Civil War had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with slavery, than yes, he IS an Uncle Tom.

  • James||

    Even if it's true (and it seems like it is) that most gay people are liberal, isn't it a bit of a chicken-or-the-egg situation? As in, are conservatives uncomfortable with gay people because they're so liberal, or are gay people liberal because conservatives are so uncomfortable having them around?

    To put it another way, it's easy to see why a gay person would be repelled from the Republicans and drawn to the Democrats on social issues, and at that point it becomes a lot more likely that they'll also take the liberal side on fiscal issues. We see the reverse happen all the time too (fiscal conservative is drawn to the Republican Party, then adopts socially conservative views as well).

  • ||

    I would argue that the gay rights movement has made huge progress ever since gun control became unpopular. Why? Probably because gun control was wrongly linked with gay marriage as a "social issue." People were given a choice of gays vs. guns, and picked not losing the right they already had. Once the Dems backed off the victim disarmament movement, it seemed silly to send men to jail for sex with other men.

    On that subject, it REALLY pissed me off when a "moderate" Republican would describe himself as on the "libertarian" wing of the party, and use his support for victim disarmament as proof of it.

  • Robert||

    it REALLY pissed me off when a "moderate" Republican would describe himself as on the "libertarian" wing of the party, and use his support for victim disarmament as proof of it.


    Heh. It's as if "libertarian" were understood as a synonym for "unconventional".

  • James||

    Well, to refine my comment, the word that's always missing from these discussions is "openly."

    "Even if it's true that most openly gay people are liberal..."

  • Robert||

    You're seeing the same thing I'm inferring.

  • ||

    A friend told that once that he was at a GOP convention when he saw a Log Cabin Republican being "ostracized". He went up to apologize for the behavior of the other Republicans.

    "Oh this is nothing. When I wear a Log Cabin button in Republican gathering they don't talk to me, but when I wear a Log Cabin button in gay gatherings they spit on me."

  • Robert||

    are conservatives uncomfortable with gay people because they're so liberal, or are gay people liberal because conservatives are so uncomfortable having them around?


    The latter, I think. More precisely, not because they're uncomfortable having them around, but because they're uncomfortable acknowledging their presence. I don't think they minded knowing their associates were homo, as long as people outside their immediate circle didn't know.

  • Thomas O.||

    Which is why groups like GOProud and LCR are so important. And the fact that there's a second major conservative LGBT group is a sign that the gays are making good progress. Even so, it'll probably take a high-profile homosexual declaring him/herself on Team Red to get more gays and gay supporters to come out of the conservative closet.

  • Gregory Goldmaker||

    The enemy of my enemy...

  • Gregory Goldmaker||

    The enemy of my enemy...

  • Robert||

    Interesting, because a libertarian speaker in Chicago about 30 years ago said most homosexuals (or maybe just gays, i.e. male homosexuals, I forgot) were politically "conservative". Think things since then have changed, or was his analysis skewed?

    If I had to guess, I would guess that things really did change as gays & lesbians became less closeted -- that they wound up pushed away from the "right" that they may have affiliated with previously.

  • ||

    All I know is many of my gay friends are staunchly conservative on fiscal issues. Many of them are also pro-military/veterans' causes. A lot of them just don't like the socialist policies of Obama and the Democrats.

  • Joker Venom||

    ....like repealing DADT, which destroyed our military by giving homos special rights.

  • Tim||

    Gay Marriage is as big an oxymoron as Jumbo Shrimp.

  • Destrudo||

    So not at all an oxymoron?

  • Thomas O.||

    Stereotype much?

  • ||

    Any kind of government sanctioned marriage is as stupid as that statement.

  • ||

    Is that like baloney shrimp?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    it strikes me as deceitful to dismiss legitimate arguments for preserving traditional marriage and ugly to smear everyone making them as homophobic Neanderthals.

    There are legitimate arguments? I'd love to hear some.

  • rho||

    Societies that are not built around the nuclear family unit are not compatible with freedom.

    The counter-argument is that gay marriage is not detrimental to the nuclear family. The counter-counter-argument is "prove it."

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    So a society that is "built" around extended families, rather than nuclear families, will not be compatible with freedom?

  • rho||

    I dunno. Do you have any examples of such?

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    Well let's see... there was this country called the U.S.A. that was, for some time, mainly an agrarian society were people often lived in extended families. This notion that only nuclear families are compatible with freedom seems rather ludicrous to me. What do you base this opinion on, I wonder?

  • Robert||

    You may be right. Or if not exactly incompatible, at least unconducive.

  • Thomas O.||

    You contradict your own argument by stating freedom is contingent on only one type of lifestyle. It's not really freedom if the government is telling you what type of person you can marry.

    And gay marriage not being detrimental to the nuclear family is easy to prove, because the vast majority of same-sex-marriage-based families don't make a big deal out of their untraditional arrangement, and they and their children peacefully coexist with the other families in the neighborhood. There's no flaunting of sexuality from the gay couples as feared by the bible-beaters, because - guess what! - responsible, mature adults, homosexual AND heterosexual, keep their sexual behaviors to themselves and away from the children. Yes, most gay and lesbian people are mature about sexual expression, contrary to conventional right-wing belief. All little Jimmy needs to understand about his friend Dave, with two daddies instead of a mommy and daddy, is that some men want to marry other men like most other men want to marry women. And that there's nothing wrong with Dave's family because families are centered around love, responsibility and commitment, not some prerequisite gender assignment.

  • Intelligent, Nuanced Rebuttal||

    Queer.

  • ||

    I can think of few things that are less compatible with freedom than marriage of any kind.

  • ||

    no, the burden of proof is on the ones who want to limit others, who make the claim that the nuclear family is somehow that important.

    Especially considering the rise of the nuclear family and demise of the extended family is what has thrown so many into welfare and medicare and would have cared for and been taken care of by their extended family.

  • ||

    The argument is that the best thing for society is a male and female parent to raise children. Because this is so important/special, as a society our gov't recognizes this union.
    To this extent I believe social conservatives have a point, I do think that a male and female parent are ideal to raise children. However the realities of life are that many traditional parents are crappy parents. While same sex parents may not be perfect for raising children, even average same sex couples are going to raise children far better than crappy traditional parents or divorced parents.

  • ||

    +100

  • ||

    But the problem is that the bond between parents and children in adoptive families has not worked as well as a biological bond. http://www.livescience.com/cul.....00419.html
    You can argue all you want that traditional family units have problems. Of course they do. But logically adoptive families would have the same problems PLUS the problems inherent in the artificial circumstances of the relationship. And that doesn't even begin to take into account having two parents of the same gender, as opposed to different gender.

  • ||

    Pay attention to the smoke and mirrors. Please look only into the blue mirror or the red mirror while doing so.

    Whether you agree with them or oppose them on moral grounds, a good government shouldn't be mandating, proscribing, or sanctioning anything* one way or the other.

    * If you're an apologistic libertarian, then append "to do with marriage" here.

  • Tony is a cocksucker||

    Tony is a cocksucker

  • ||

    As someone who has actually been to a gay marriage, gays aren't all that tolerant. They seem to be numerists, denoucing anything other than a pairing of exactly two.
    Fresno dan: "Why can't a man marry 5 or 6 supple young Asian girls, or a woman marry 4 or 5 men, or a man marry a man and a woman (aside - bisexuality REALLY freaks out some gays).
    GAYs: Because God wants two people to be together.
    OR
    A relationship has to be one on one - three would just confuse the whole situation!
    Fresno Dan: I bow before superior intellectual use of logic.

  • Tony is a cocksucker||

    When one member of a polygamist marriage wants out the property disputes get very difficult.

    Limiting marriage to two people makes the job of divorce lawyers and divorce courts easier, not to mention the tax collector.

  • ||

    Why would lawyers want anything easier?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    First, I agree with Shocked.

    Second, if the marriage contract was clearly defined, they wouldn't need a lawyer in the first place, whether the marriage consisted of two or twenty.

  • Robert||

    Actually very few conceive of such a thing as a marriage of 3 or more. In almost all cases, each marriage is a marriage of 2, rather than a marriage of each to all. Polygamy is almost always conceived as a case of someone's participating simultaneously in more than 1 marriage, rather than as a group marriage. In most cases the marriages don't even start at the same time.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I usually think of polygamy as a group marriage, but you have a point. I used the number range to include all sorts of alternative marriage schemes. Robert A. Heinlein explored a relatively small number of alternative schemes in relatively small detail in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." I think that since the government should get out of the marriage business, it doesn't matter what kind of contract you make. I can have two wives, a woman can have two husbands, or anything else, for that matter.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    When one member of a polygamist marriage wants out the property disputes get very difficult.


    And yet states permit more than two people in general partnerships.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    A clearly defined contract will usually take care of that. However, most marriages have a contract consisting of a license and wedding vows, which explains why divorces are so messy.

  • ||

    so "a gay marrage" means fresno dan is an expert on all gaydom?

  • You Suck||

    at this.

  • Tony||

    Why should gay couples have to answer for polygamists and pedophiles before they're allowed to have equal rights?

  • I hate fags||

    Because polygamists and pedophiles, like homosexuals, are mentally ill.

    To change the institution of marriage for any of the three is to modify the cornerstone of society in order to appease the mentally ill.

    Go suck a dick.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    You can't be serious...

    Homosexuality as a mental illness? Homosexuality hasn't been considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association since 1973. It's been almost 40 years. Get over it.

    And, for the record, I'm a straight male.

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    Also, for the record, you're a troll-feeder.

  • ||

    It was kind of you to describe "I hate fags" as a troll instead of actually being serious in his stated opinions, as so many actually are.

  • cynical||

    How can they justify changing the definition of marriage for themselves but not for polygamists (pedophiles are sort of a different question)?

    Do they really believe there is a difference, or are they just butthurt about Mormons opposing gay marriage?

  • MNG||

    It's just a question of what is central to marriage, the gender or the number. I can see rational answers all around...

  • Zeb||

    Which is why everyone should be able to define marriage for themselves.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I agree with you on the nature of the question.

  • Tony||

    First, there is no "definition of marriage" floating in the ether, guarded by Jesus. Marriage (of the civil variety) is defined by law.

    If polygamists and pedophiles want law to recognize their arrangements, they can go to court and petition their legislatures. I don't see why gay couples should have to answer for them. It's just a form of a slippery slope argument.

  • So?||

    FD's point was that gays are guilty of the same intolerance that is directed towards them. He's not asking them to "answer for" anyone.

  • Tony||

    So it's only gays being intolerant of polygamy and pedophilia?

  • So?||

    Look, if you want to masturbate to your own comments, fine, but if you're serious, try being a little less disingenuous.

  • Tony||

    This is completely absurd, but ok. Gays want the right to marry one adult of one's choosing, which is the same right that heterosexuals enjoy right now, today. Polygamy has nothing to do with it, and it certainly isn't the responsibility of gays to defend it. I imagine gays are just as proportionally "intolerant" of polygamy as straights. The case for gay marriage equality has nothing to do with polygamy, but if you ask me, let polygamists have their day in court. I don't care.

  • ||

    No
    and let me amend "young" to mean 18 and over.
    Though, just to screw with people, what should the minimum marriage age be, and why? (seems kind of funny that humans can reproduce, and do reproduce at 13, but can't get married)

  • Tony||

    Almost as if marriage in a modern context and reproduction have little to do with one another.

  • ||

    Correct - illegitmacy is about 40% or so.

  • ||

    In West Virginia, under 16 with parental consent and court order.

  • Bill||

    Maybe because the theoretical gays being discussed here think it will hurt their case and their arguments?

    The theoretical gay people are not necessarily libertarians; they just want the right to get married.

  • Robert||

    How can they justify changing the definition of marriage for themselves but not for polygamists


    Because for polygamy you don't have to change a definition of marriage, only adjust the limit of how many marriages one is allowed at a time. 2 different issues, shouldn't be confused.

  • Thomas O.||

    Exactly. Some people just like to throw ice on a slope with perfectly sound traction.

  • Robert||

    (aside - bisexuality REALLY freaks out some gays).


    That may be a mere aside for the moment, but it's lurking in the background of lots of discussions of the social acceptability of sexuality. I've heard for a long time that bisexuality presents the greatest affront to both movement homosexuals and movement anti-homosexuals -- and even to people who otherwise don't freak out about sexuality much at all!

  • meh||

    protip: The "B" in LGBT stands for "bisexual".

    I think the vast majority of gays are cool with bi's.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    A relationship has to be one on one - three would just confuse the whole situation!


    That would a legitimate argument on their part if they did not wrap their arguments on the basis of the freedom to choose life partners.

    If they simply stuck with arguments that removing sex from the definition of marriage benefits society, at least they could still continue to argue consistently against polygamy.

  • Audrey the Liberal||

    That some gays are hypocrites means no gays can get married. Am I reading it right?

  • proud libitard||

    I'm not one who supports state sponsored marriage but let's assume that it provides a benefit. For example, protection for spouses who are wronged and have been out of the workforce for a long time and really don't have any opportunities to provide for themselves or any offspring they may taking care of.

    If that's the case, then why isn't state sponsored gay marriage allowed under the "Equal Protection under the Law" clause?

    I'm truly asking because I don't know...I am a tard after all! :)

  • ||

    Also, bigamy. The case against bigamy is even weaker than the case against gay marriage.

  • Almanian||

    Why the fuck would any man want more than one wife? Like one isn't a big enough pain in the ass?

  • prolefeed||

    Speak for yourself. Just because you've married a difficult bitch doesn't mean others couldn't enjoy the variety of two or more pleasant mates.

  • prolefeed is........||

    .....still in the "pre-divorce" phase of the marriage.

  • ||

    I gots no problem with state legislators enacting expanding marriage to include gay marriage.

    I am not so sure that the Constitution requires the wholesale amendment of marriage laws, though.

    From my perspective, it gets to what "marriage" means. If it means "a lifelong partnership of two people (by implication, regardless of gender)", then gay marriage bans do violate the Equal Protection Clause.

    If it means "a lifelong partnership of a man and a woman", then gay marriage bans don't violate the Equal Protection Clause.

    Now, the question is, who says what "marriage" means for purposes if this discussion? In the first instance, the legislature does (which is why they can (re)define it if they want). If the legislature opts for the traditional definition, is that a violation of Equal Protection?

    I'm having a hard time saying yes, simply because I don't think the definition of "two persons (regardless of gender)" is what marriage has been understood to mean, ever. What is being asked for is a redefinition of marriage, which is the business of the legislature. Unlike legislatures, the courts are not in the business of changing the accepted definitions of terms.

    The counterargument, of course, is that society as a whole sets the meaning of "marriage". Which is a way of begging the question, in my mind, of which institution is better situated to reflect a societal redefinition - an unelected and tenured judiciary, or an elected legislature.

  • ||

    Having spoken at length with someone with a dog in the fight, it is my understanding that the push for Federal legislation recognizing gay marriage is due to the overwhelming number of laws (apparently 1700+) on the books at state and federal levels that specify in one form or another that marriage (and all rights associated) is restricted to a man and a woman. I don't know that this is a fact, but this is the basis for her argument. If the Feds merely pulled out of the definition, then gay-rights advocates would still have to act to overturn each of these other laws. Much more work involved.

    And an additional argument (not that I support it, but it has been made) in favor of an affirmative action at the Federal level is that an inclusive marriage law precludes the states from defining or restricting it as they wish (sort of related to the above argument, in a way). A law that merely removes the Feds from the definition would still allow the States to make their own. This is very much analogous to Roe v. Wade and why pro-choice advocates fear its repeal. Merely repealing RvW doesn't make abortion illegal. But it frees the state governments to pass their own laws.

    I disagree with both arguments, as I believe the states have this right under the Constitution. But that's just the libertarian in me.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Having spoken at length with someone with a dog in the fight, it is my understanding that the push for Federal legislation recognizing gay marriage is due to the overwhelming number of laws (apparently 1700+) on the books at state and federal levels that specify in one form or another that marriage (and all rights associated) is restricted to a man and a woman.


    Are there any news about a push for a constitutional amendment to that affect (which will obviate at least five pending court cases on the matter)?

  • Robert||

    Now, the question is, who says what "marriage" means for purposes if this discussion?


    I would hope it to be the same as for language in general: custom. That is, nobody gets to decide by fiat. It's a question of fact: What do people mean when they write that word in a legal document?

    Allowing a legislature to impose a new definition is as unjust as allowing the sovereign to decree a new meaning of thaler, dollar, pound, etc. -- or to bestow a right to do so on some other party. Oops, guess they did that already.

  • prolefeed||

    If that's the case, then why isn't state sponsored gay marriage allowed under the "Equal Protection under the Law" clause?

    Because calling it "marriage" pisses off some otherwise amenable socons. If legislation were introduced to specifically allow unmarried couples (not specifying sexual orientation at all) to have certain specific legal rights available to married couples, then a significant chunk of the socons would be peeled off and be OK with it.

    Not all of them, of course, and maybe not even a majority of them, but you're always gonna have some 'tards.

  • proud libitard||

    so what you're saying is the fight is over the definition of a single word? If that's the case, that's fucked up!

  • Robert||

    I used to think it was fucked up, but now I realize it's important not to let gov't usurp language, or it then can change any legal arrangements simply by decreeing new meanings of words. You want to sue the maker of a product that injured you? Too bad, the legislature has just decreed the meaning of that product to be "thing that will injure you". You want the right to carry a gun? OK, but the legislature has just decreed "gun" to mean "gum".

  • Michael Ejercito||

    +1000000000

  • ||

    Or banned ammo.

  • Barney The Frank||

    Finally you are talking about a subject that is imperative to the survival of America!

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Robert Byrd believed it to be important.

    His speech sponsoring DOMA

  • Liberal Dictionary||

    Tolerance - showing intolerance, with violence if necessary, to anyone with a different opinion.

    Inclusiveness - excluding, using violence if necessary, anyone with a different opinion.

    Diversity - uniformity of opinion (see tolerance and inclusiveness).

  • ||

    And we have always been at war with Oceana

  • Conservative Dictionary||

    Tolerance - see Inclusiveness
    Inclusiveness - see Diversity
    Diversity - n. That which gets in the way of white, heterosexual, Christian supremacy. To be avoided at all costs.

  • Liberals are hypocrites||

    Conservatives do not claim to be tolerant, inclusive, or in favor of diversity.

    That's what liberals claim.

    But liberals' actions represent the opposite of what they claim to represent, making them hypocrites of the highest order.

  • At least liberals try||

    Which is more admirable than rejecting being a decent person altogether then patting yourself on the back for it.

  • No they don't||

    Liberals 'try' by promoting policies that 'feel good' but as often as not hurt the people they are supposedly 'trying' to help. The ones that are completely phoneys are narcissistic chumps who are only in it for their own personal gratification. Not unlike most churches, but without all the hymnals.

  • wots all is en?||

    "liberals' actions represent the opposite of what they claim to represent, making them hypocrites of the highest order"

    Oh yes, not like all those Small Gov't Conservatives that have been elected over the yea- HA HA HA HA HA HA. Sorry, couldn't finish.

  • Libertarian Dictionary||

    Tolerance - minding your own business.

    Inclusiveness - freely associating with whomsoever you choose.

    Diversity - everyone is a unique individual, different from everyone else, and is free to do or say whatever they want so long as it does not actually harm anybody else.

  • ||

    Gays make up, if I recall correctly, an estimated 4% of the population. Some folks seem to use up alot of energy worrying what this tiny slice of humanity is up to. Is society in general really in that much danger ?

  • Tony is a cocksucker||

    Why should every marriage be redefined from 'husband and wife' to 'spouse and spouse' in order to appease the 25% of that 4% (that's 1% of the total population) that wants to call their silly civil union a marriage?

  • ||

    But why would anyone care if it is changed? That's the biggest mystery.

  • ||

    What's your silly civil union called?

  • ||

    It's called being single and enjoying sex for its own sake. Why should married people get any extra benefits?

  • Thomas O.||

    Um, so the gay couples can enjoy all the benefits that married hetero couples can enjoy without having to live a lie?

    I'm a man married to a woman, and it wouldn't offend me one bit if the scope of marriage was expanded to include same-sex couples.

    Maybe it's all in the vocabulary. Maybe the pro-gay-marriage crowd should be asserting that it's "expanding", not "redefining", marriage.

  • Thomas O.||

    Um, so the gay couples can enjoy all the benefits that married hetero couples can enjoy without having to live a lie?

    I'm a man married to a woman, and it wouldn't offend me one bit if the scope of marriage was expanded to include same-sex couples.

    Maybe it's all in the vocabulary. Maybe the pro-gay-marriage crowd should be asserting that it's "expanding", not "redefining", marriage.

  • i do it 4 teh lulz||

    1%? Thanks for working out the algebra on that one, d00d.

  • ||

    because rights are not assigned based on the number of people that would be harmed if the right is taken away. the bill of rights applies equally to every single citizen, not to only 95%. Even if all 95% are pissed off and resent it, it doesn't matter, they don't get to have their way just because they are 95%. That's pure democracy, which we don't have, we have a bill of rights to protect individuals from the mob.

  • The Jews||

    Tell me about it.

  • cynical||

    Are you suggesting we should all be more worried about what the Jews are doing?

  • Audrey the Liberal||

    I know I am./just kidding

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Gays make up, if I recall correctly, an estimated 4% of the population. Some folks seem to use up alot of energy worrying what this tiny slice of humanity is up to. Is society in general really in that much danger ?


    Yet somehow, those 4% managed to get legislatures in New Hampshire and Vermont to depart from the deeply-rooted Western civilizational definition of marriage

  • ||

    Yes they have to not only be in the majority, but force everyone to follow their ways.

  • Tony is a cocksucker||

    Tony sucks dick

  • Tony||

    You seem disturbingly preoccupied with what type of genitalia I prefer to wrap my mouth around.

    What, do you think you're insulting me? Sucking dick is, in fact, one of my favorite pastimes.

  • Dick||

    Nobody asked me!

  • ||

    "...it's social conservatism that will most often turn those with secular sensibilities away from the right."

    Indeed, it would be interesting to live in a country with the Libertarian Party and the Republican Party's positions switched. Alas.

  • Mensan||

    Indeed, it would be interesting [awesome] to live in a country with the Libertarian Party and the Republican Party's positions switched.

    FTFY

  • you won't believe me but......||

    Liberals pray every night for such a scenario.

    Pray. On their knees. Pleading with Allah. Pleading.

    Trading Rush Limbaugh for Gary Johnson? DEAR GOD YES PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE. We'd all hold hands and sing while smoking pot. Black people could join the "other side" without having to put up with that Neo-Confederate nonsense. It'd be *beautiful*.

  • Audrey the Liberal||

    You're right, I don't believe you.

  • ||

    someone explain how gay marrage harms straight marrage.

  • christ, you are boring.||

    eom

  • Mawwage||

    I fink ewe spewwed it wong...mawwage, is what bwings us togevverrr....not marrage.

  • Tony is a cocksucker||

    someone explain which one is the husband and which one is the wife.

  • ||

    waiting...

  • But I repeat myself||

    You're going to wait a long time here, dumbass, since libertarians don't think gay marriage "harms straight marrage" (sic)

    Being stupid AND a pest is no way to go through life, son

  • You Still Suck||

    at this.

  • Thomas O.||

    Still waiting...

  • Zeb||

    Perhaps no one has explained this to you yet, OhioOrrin. Libertarians and republicans are not the same thing. Most people here think either that gay marriage should be allowed or that the state should not be involved in marriage at all.

  • Thomas O.||

    There are still plenty of social conservatives that participate in discussion here, though. To them, I say.... We're still waiting.

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    The same way PB&J sandwiches are harmed by BLTs.

  • Mensan||

    What about the PBB&J sandwiches? Seriously, everybody do yourself a favor and try a peanut butter, bacon, and jelly sandwich.

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    That's the decadent queen of all sandwiches!

  • ||

    The tragedy of the social conservatives is that the philosophy confuses what should be your moral code that determines your action with a political philosophy that you express towards others. This is induced by the larger society's tendency towards the "culture of death" described by Pope John Paul II. We allow abortion, even give it special status that other surgical or medical procedures don't get, we force people to accept a world where public intoxication is OK, and so on. The reaction to this is to go political.

    A better reaction is to go moral. To act as you see fit. To spend your money where the decaying western "culture" has not become as corroded.

    Accept the gays and their need for a civil contract to give them marital status as the social structure we live in has attached too many of our civil privileges to marriage.

    Be tolerant of the drug users and the sexually irresponsible and reach out toward them to give them a way back to the real path of success in life.

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    One cannot use drugs and be successful? One cannot take it up the hinder and be successful? Elton John says you're wrong.

  • James||

    Now, it's true that social conservatives can be unfairly ridiculed as bigots in these debates. But sometimes, as it happens, they act like bigots.

    Very well said. I'd add that a lot of conservatives seem to have convinced themselves, based on the occasional unfair accusation of bigotry, that the accusation is always unfair. Liberals would be wise to pick their fights a little more tactfully, and conservatives would benefit from a little more self-awareness (but, really, isn't that true about everybody, on just about every issue?).

  • sarcasmic||

    As I see it there are two distinct issues here.

    1) extending legal rights/protections to same sex couples

    2) the definition of marriage

    Many people treasure the traditional definition of marriage while also wanting to extend these rights/protections to same sex couples.

    Does a compromise exist?

  • ||

    Yes, but it's one that pleases almost nobody: Divide the legal and the religious aspects of "marriage" into distinct parts. Civil unions for everyone and religious institutions get to define and grant marriage.

    The downside is that gays don't get to rub "gay marriage" in the so-cons' face and the so-cons lose "marriage = man + woman" to social convention when the socially liberal (sub) religions get to deem two guys to be "married."

    The polys get a foot in the door, but then that is inevitable anyway.

  • prolefeed||

    That compromise pleases me just fine. Better yet would be telling government officials that they have no say whatsoever in who is or is not married, but that's a better non-compromise that's not on the table anytime soon.

  • Zeb||

    I don't see why this is not the obvious solution to everyone. If you don't like gay marriage, then you can go to a church that won't marry gays and get married. Problem solved.

  • rho||

    Because as SF noted, polygamy comes next. Polygamy is not compatible with free societies. Which sounds like an oxymoron until one starts counting polygamous societies that are noteworthy for their freedoms.

  • pls||

    There is a difference between allowing polygamy and a 'polygamous society'. And I'm not swayed by your correlation between polygamous societies and lack of freedom.

  • rho||

    I would be swayed if you could provide counter-examples.

    I'm just looking at the facts I have. "I don't see how it could possibly hurt" is the most unpersuasive argument ever to justify sweeping social jiggery-pokery.

    (This is where you say "You mean like SLAVERY, eh Hitler?")

  • pls||

    No, this is the part where I ignore you, since you are obviously a lunatic and think leaving people alone to do what they want to do is "sweeping social jiggery-pokery." The fact is you don't have any facts or you would present them to try to sway people to your bizarre point of view.

  • Tony||

    Polygamy is one of those things that sounds fun in theory, but in practice almost always is a result of the institutional oppression of women.

    There are plenty of arguments against legally recognized polygamy on these grounds (though nobody is saying you can't start a harem if you want).

  • Steve||

    Polygamy already exists in America (see Utah, etc...) They just deny it and go about their business.

  • rho||

    Polygamy already exists in America (see Utah, etc...) They just deny it and go about their business.

    By this standard--it happens, even though it's not legally sanctioned--we already have gay marriage.

    Whew! Problem solved.

  • Steve||

    Exactly.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Polygamy is gender-blind. I think you are thinking of certain religious groups which practice polygyny.

  • rho||

    "Leave me alone!"

    I used to use that argument too. When I was twelve.

    "LA LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING!"

    I think I was six the last time that worked for me.

    You remind me of the anti-immunization folks who don't see anything wrong with not getting their kids vaccinated. Their kids are doing just fine! Of course, they're surrounded by people who did vaccinate their kids, but that's just "correlation, not causation".

    You can have all the gay marriage you want when we see the end of all equal-protection and anti-discrimination laws. When I can buy insurance from a company that is allowed to reject gays, black males from 18-24, skydivers, mountain climbers and people who like to build Tesla coils--then you can marry a gay goat for all I care.

  • ||

    You have a problem with my Tesla coil?

  • Zeb, Zeb, Zeb||

    The 'problem' is you're not an authoritarian!

  • jacob||

    What do you mean "almost nobody?"

    Sounds like a dandy proposition to me.

  • Steve||

    I oppose the state forcing me to recognize gay "marriage." Adults entering into a contract is their own business.

  • Tony||

    So your delicate sensibilities are more important to protect than my equal rights...

  • Steve||

    Both (my rights and your rights) are equally important. That's pretty much why they call it "equality."

  • Tony||

    What makes you think you have a right to not recognize something. Either it is marriage or it isn't. In the event gay marriage is made legal, you're not being forced to do anything, though it might be prudent to acknowledge reality.

  • Tony||

    The only definition of marriage that is relevant is what the law says. In order for equal protection to be satisfied, the legal definition must be the same for gays and straights.

    Are we supposed to believe that objections here aren't about whether gays are allowed to marry, but rather a single entry in Webster's?

  • ||

    In order for equal protection to be satisfied, the legal definition must be the same for gays and straights.

    Scroll up a little, Tony, and you'll see why you are assuming your conclusion here.

  • Tony||

    That's just a long restatement of the utterly fallacious argument that gays have equal rights because they can legally wed someone of the opposite sex.

  • Steve||

    It's not false. Marriage has a definition and that ain't it!

  • Edwin||

    uhhh... no? C'mon Tony. I can apprecaite the gay marriage argument but don't argue fallacious things. IIRC, this is exactly why they had to specifically get rid of anti-miscegenation laws; they couldn't be ruled a violation of the 14th.

  • Edwin||

    Whoops, my mistake. Just looked it up, Loving vs. Virginia.

    Then again, this is a matter of personal preference, not race. You would LIKE to get married to other men - they're only discriminating against your preference, you still have equality in that you can get married to a woman... Then again maybe the fact that it has to be opposite-sex marriage is discrimination based on sex.

    If we're going to read broadly into "equal protection", then why aren't libertarian arguments against professional licensing and regulations, and subsidies valid under "equal protection" Why should a farmer get a subsidy but not me? Sure, I could get a subsidy if I were a farmer, but you just said that that doesn't count as equal protection, you were just talking about a different criterion. How about the those federal arts grants?
    And indeed number of people? If a lack of gay marriage violates your equal protection, why the hell doesn't a lack of polygymy/polyandry laws violate polygamists' equal protection?

  • Edwin||

    I'm both challenging and straight up asking... if you know how the courts have ruled I'd be interested to know - I wouldn't really know what to "google" to look it up.

  • Tony||

    I won't say that it's an equal protection matter self-evidently, but it's nearly so. Loving established marriage as a fundamental, and individual, right. The only leap from Loving that needs to be made is from racial discrimination in marriage laws to gender discrimination. Now to me that's not much of a stretch, but a more straightforward, if less legally sound, way of looking at it is to simply reframe what you mean by marriage in a modern context, i.e., the thing heterosexuals enjoy. Essentially it's the right of two heterosexuals to gain access to certain legal privileges. The only way homosexuals can gain access is to marry someone they by definition have no interest in marrying. That is not equal protection, and to claim that it is just isn't credible. So it's really discrimination against homosexuals, something society hasn't fully recognized as a problem equal to other forms of discrimination yet, but which obvious is.

    On subsidies, I don't know a formal answer off the top of my head, but it would seem that occupations of people are not protected classes.

  • ||

    As I see it there are two distinct issues here.

    Bingo. The hardcore gay activists have categorically rejected the "civil union" solution, even when it includes gay 'n' gal marriages.

    The reason: They don't want mere legal equality, they want social approval.

    And, of course, you've got some so-cons taking the opposite hardline position on civil unions, that societay shouldn't sanction teh gaiety in any way.

    If the hardcore types didn't have so much sway, I suspect there's more than enough moderates to make the deal.

  • ||

    Erp, should be guy 'n' gal marriages.

  • Tony||

    They don't want mere legal equality, they want social approval.

    So, because marriage equality proponents are arguing for marriage equality instead of a "separate but equal" hodgepodge, they want "social approval." Is that another way of saying "special rights"?

    Social approval would be nice too, but that's not something that can be won in courts of law. I'd hope the bigots would come around eventually.

    This is an instance where the correct solution isn't just arbitrarily choosing the middle ground. The reason law is moving inexorably toward acceptance of gay marriage is because there simply is no legitimate argument on the other side. And they've had high-powered lawyers trying to make one.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    So, because marriage equality proponents are arguing for marriage equality instead of a "separate but equal" hodgepodge, they want "social approval." Is that another way of saying "special rights"?


    That is exactly what the whole thing is about.

    That is why so many of them think that the mere refusal to redefine marriage is in itself an injury to them.

  • Tony||

    I think it's well established that not having equal protection under the law is an injury.

  • Tony||

    Oh I think I misread you. Gay people aren't rejecting "civil unions for all" because they want social approval, they reject it because it's highly improbable that straights would accept a downgrade of their legal rights in order to satisfy gays. The most direct route to equality would seem to be simply including gays in the existing legal framework, would it not?

    The bottom line to the other argument is that people think that their right not to have their religious convictions or so-called moral sensibilities challenged is more important than gay people's rights to equal treatment under the law.

  • Mensan||

    The bottom line to the other argument is that people think that their right not to have their religious convictions or so-called moral sensibilities challenged is more important than gay people's rights to equal treatment under the law.

    Uh oh! I think I agree with Tony on something. Is it 2012 already? Is the world ending?

  • Daniel||

    It's obvious that many conservatives have gone overboard over this issue. Destruction of society and what not. But, the lack of legal recognition of gay marriage is not an initiation of force. Gay marriage wouldn't be "illegal". It simply wouldn't be anything at all.

  • ||

    its a small thing, but i encourage all gays who want to get married to have a ceremony and henceforth refer to themselves as married.

    it doesnt fix the rights issue, but is a great way of shining a light on the silliness of the argument against gay marriage.

    Lesbian: Im married

    SoCon: NO, YOU ARE NOT!

    Lesbian: Yes, we had a nice wedding and everything.

    SoCon: BUT, IT WASN'T REAL!

    Lesbian: Oh, sure it was. We had a minister, exhanged vows, and everything.

    SoCon: [turns red with impotent rage]

    this is how the argument goes. you would think the socons would have more thoughtful arguments, but they either dont care to think it through, or are so upset at the very notion of it that they cannot compose one.

  • jacob||

    +100

  • rho||

    -100, gay marriage has never been about this. It's about legal recognition of their married status so they can get the tax benefits (whatever those are), family insurance rates and sticking it to the squares.

    Oh, wait, maybe you are right. +100 right back!

  • Steve||

    They can think that they are the King and King of Mars, don't make it so. And as long as they don't have the government show up with a gun and make me bow, they are free to have their delusion.

  • ||

    The government won't show up and force you to do anything. It's mostly the fact that the government won't extend rights to these couples that hetero couples get.

  • jacob||

    triclops41, looks like it already worked!

  • Robert||

    Anybody here have some serious ideas as to how "conservatism" (and its opposite) comes to have the outlines is does?

  • perfect storm of marriage||

    biologic sisters, each under 12 YO and already and currently married, marrying each other in a mosque at Ground 0, and eating pork at the reception

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    How is that you can see my private fantasies?

  • ||

    This debate should question whether "marriage," no matter how it gets defined, is even still relevant at all. Kids under 30 aren't even doing it anymore, (marriage, not sex!) so all you old dogies on this thread need to get hipto the fact that the institution just isn't compelling anymore!

  • ||

    Yeah, kids under 30 are too busy snorting bath salts to think about dumb, outdated institutions that promote financial and social institutions. They know where it's at.

  • ||

    argh, financial and social stability. (those bath salts are catching up to me)

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Social conservatives have long defended the Western civilizational historical and traditional definition of marriage.

    It was implicit in the Republican Party platform of 1856, which described polygamy as a relic of barbarism. And history shows that the anti-polygamy laws were passed because of animus against Mormons.

  • An observation||

    Most gay people I know are fit and happy. Most married people I know are fat and bitter. This just means that gays will become fat and bitter, too. If that what's gays want, then so be it It just might not be better for anyone involved.

  • Tony||

    Candidly, I'm horrified at the prospect of gays becoming normalized and suburbanized, and am personally against marriage. I just think the case is so clear-cut, an obvious wrong easily remedied.

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    Anyone....DUMB ENOUGH.. to want to get married should be allowed to.

    (With apologies to Bill Hicks.)

  • theunknown||

    I think a good way to settle the differences between socials conservatives and libertarians is to see society as something that is 'atomized' where each person is free to have opposing views and still exist within the same society. Stop seeing society as a whole that moves either one direction or the other. See it as atoms that move in all different directions.

  • ||

    Unfortunately, most/many social conservatives only see society as a whole. Remember some of the people we are dealing with think the earth is 6000 years old.

  • ||

    So you think that people's views on morality have no more effect on anything than their views on favorite color? "You believe it's ok to murder small children, and I don't but it's cool! Let's hug it out!" That is the stupidest hippie BS I've heard in awhile.

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    So tell me, hypothetically, how would your neighbor's belief that it's OK to murder small children affect you? Would it affect you more than his favorite color? How so? Would it hurt your feelings or something?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    If Lisa were a child, it might.

    It's the big things that matter. Murder, theft, destruction of property... not who you marry.

  • Edwin||

    Marriage laws in general are fucked. They allow people to break serious, lifelong contracts they make and abuse each and take advantage of each other - and by "each other" I mean the sociopaths and assholes and people with personality disorders doing it to the normal, hard-working people.

    From what I heard, family courts don't even consider cheating or initiating a divorce as evidence of a high chance of being a bad parent or being uncommited to raising your kids. When in fact that is the exact OPPOSITE mentality people have going into marriage in the first place. I've never heard of anyone being like "OK, let's get married and raise kids. Oh, and it's totally OK for you to sleep around even as we try to raise the kids together."

  • Edwin||

    People need to be able to enter into enforceable contracts. There can be some restrictions on the edges or extremes - but outright banning an entire kind of contract/human indsutry/human institution ends up being very harmful.

  • Tony||

    I wouldn't blame marriage laws for the casual way marriage is treated these days. I would say that marriage has in fact become liberalized in society, among the married, and laws have followed suit.

  • cartier eyewear||

    WholeSale Cartier Ring
    Cartier

    Love Bracelet
    Cartier

    Sunglasses
    Cartier

    Glasses
    ray ban sunglasses
    WholeSale Cartier glasses eyeglasses frames at a low price.you will be

    interested

  • ||

    Sometimes it's hard to remember we're all on the same team. That's why http://mittromneycentral.com/2.....r-dollars/ was so refreshing and timely. Before the race for 2012 officially starts, we should get as many people to read that wonderful piece as we can. Then, in 2012 we can bring America back!

  • ||

    The writer seems to be falling into the same old liberal trap of "if you're not with us, you're a bigot".

    To social conservatives, whom you have sex with is a choice. This rankles progressives who don't believe in free will. So to them if you think that sodomy is wrong, then you must hate the people who engage in it. Social conservatives don't generally hate homosexuals, even if they boycott events that they are attending because to them it represents just another political position with which they can agree, or not.

  • Tony||

    To social conservatives, whom you have sex with is a choice.

    It's just that the meth makes them lose their judgment.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Whom you have sex with is a choice. Which gender (or both) that you prefer is not.

  • ||

    How can it be "deceitful" to tell the truth? For there are no legitimate arguments against gay marriage - only homophobic ones.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Then all of Western civilization was homophobic for centuries.

  • Graham Shevlin||

    Which is probably true. We also need to remember that for many hundreds of years a majority of people believed that the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around the Earth, and challengers to those beliefs often had a hard time staying alive.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Five million Frenchmen can be wrong. Which means that just because the majority is homophobic, homophobia still isn't justified.

  • Audrey the Liberal||

    Now it's better.

  • ||

    It is not necessary that government get out of marriage. It is not in it. Yes, it issues licenses but they are not required. Marriage is a religious sacrament. It is not a government edict. Now, let's talk about the economics of marriage. That is where government sticks its nose in. The tax benefits, inheritance rights and other things controlled by government. These are not marriage, they are economics and finance. You do not need to be married to inherit, you need to be mentioned in a will. Why someone would want to be married and suffer the "marriage penalty" in taxation is beyond me. Marriage is marriage and the rest is the State. Remember what Jesus said about giving to Caeser what is Caeser's. The rest is God's and marriage is part of it.

  • Daran||

    All for government to be out of the marriage business, but handle it by legal unions. Marriage is a church issue.

  • nike running shoes||

    is good

  • Scarpe Nike Italia||

    is good

  • Scarpe Nike Italia||

    is good

  • saily||

    good

  • feng||

    like

  • alipay||

    ThAnK

  • wubai||

    ThAnK

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement