A Republican with a heart for gay marriages

Houston Chronicle ^ | Feb. 17, 2004 | DAVE DYER

[yonif]

I'm a middle-aged, happily married heterosexual Republican who supports gay marriage. That should not be as unusual as it may seem. Who could not be touched by the lines of gay marriage license applicants on Valentine's Day? Didn't George Bush promote a marriage initiative because he understood that a stable families are good for the country?

Marriage is not a religious institution, despite the efforts by some to claim it as such for their own purposes. It is a concept of civil law whereby the state recognizes a voluntary, public commitment between two people. In fact, the religious leaders who perform marriages must be authorized by the state to do so. Religion is irrelevant. Atheists can, and do, marry legally and successfully. Likewise, gender should be irrelevant. All that is necessary is the voluntary, public commitment of two adults.

A civil union as a sort of consolation prize marriage will not work because the concept of marriage is already deeply embedded in too many other legal and social institutions. If it is just a civil union, will the insurance company pay? Will the doctor let you decide what is best during an emergency? Will the jury award the alimony? Will your inheritance be allowed? They have to be able to marry in exactly the same legal sense as heterosexuals so that all the established legal and cultural structures apply. For civil unions to work, this web of consequences of marriage would have to be rebuilt; there is no reason to do this since it already exists.

I am at a loss to see how gay marriage can endanger the concept of marriage, as some claim. Marriage, and civil rights in general, should not be reserved for people who are just like you. If you don't enjoy pondering what the sex acts of others might look like, then don't. It is none of your business. Very few people's sex lives would be a hit on the big screen, anyway. If unattractive people get married, does this somehow endanger the marriages of attractive people?

Republicans ought to strongly support individual rights, whether those rights are economic or civil. Sometimes individuals are individualistic in inconvenient ways. Tough. That's just a consequence of freedom.

Dyer is an individual investor who has lived in Houston since 1977. Readers may e-mail him at davedyer@mindspring.com.

[yonif]

I do not support, of course, marriage for gays. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

[MonroeDNA]

Good post.

"I am at a loss to see how gay marriage can endanger the concept of marriage..."

The purpose of marriage is to raise kids. Homosexuals raise f-uped kids.

It's about the threat to society, not marriage.

A drunk tank driver is not so much a threat to sober tank drivers, as he is a threat to the villiage.

[ClintonBeGone]

All that is necessary is the voluntary, public commitment of two adults.

Then why do the homos want the state to sanction it?

[Prime Choice]

I wonder what Mr. Dyer thinks of incestuous marriages, then.

Sure, the pro-gay-marriage types argue that such unions would "harm society." Well, what the hell do they think gay marriage is doing? Sure as hell ain't helping!

[ClintonBeGone]

A drunk tank driver is not so much a threat to sober tank drivers, as he is a threat to the villiage.

Great point DNA.

[Prime Choice]

I'm a middle-aged, happily married heterosexual Republican who supports gay marriage.

I don't doubt he's middle-aged. He may be happily married. He definitely supports gay marriage. But if this jackwit is a Republican, it's in name only.

[StatesEnemy]

Ya know the REAL problem is, the State has NO BUSINESS conferring special privileges to any sort of personal relationship.

As for the legal aspects that are recognized in Marriage, homosexuals couples SHOULD be able to secure them as well.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Here, Here!

[JoJo Gunn]

That's not the kind of Republican this party needs.

[tahiti]

"It's about the threat to society,..."

You damn right it is.

Amendment IX

"The enumeration in Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Each citizen has the right, "retained by the people," to "marry" the person of their choice without any interference or denial by their government.

The Constitution needs to be conserved in order to retain all of our liberties.

[LTCJ]

I am at a loss to see how gay marriage can endanger the concept of marriage

A pity. He started out correctly and then just slithered off into nonsense ...

Between this guy and Karl Rove, you really have to wonder ...

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I don't doubt he's middle-aged. He may be happily married. He definitely supports gay marriage. But if this jackwit is a Republican, it's in name only

Here's the problem, as another Republican who things homosexual marriages should be on the same legal footing as heterosexual ones.

I'm for keeping taxes down -- way down. I strongly support the free market. I oppose gun control. I think environmentalist wackos are dangerous to the nation's health and economy. I support Bush's actions in Iraq.

I sometimes voted Libertarian, before Harry Browne sided with the Islamofascist terrorists and still consider myself a small-l libertarian. Given the above, I'm sure as Hell not a Democrat. So I guess the GOP is the closest match to my politics.

Give me a pro-free-market, pro-defense, socially-free-wheeling, party that is proud to wave the American flag and I'll join it. Until then, count me as a Republican.

[Asclepius]

I'm a middle-aged, happily married heterosexual Republican who supports gay marriage.

The newest rhetorical trick of the political left reduces to partisan ventriloquism: you articulate so-called progressive arguments while claiming to be a republican or Christian or Bush supportor.

Anyone can play this stupid game.

We should write letters to editors or troll left wing sites claiming to be unemployed or state employed Democrats who support President Bush or unshowered union rubes who believe in free trade or drag queens against gay marriage or peace activists who believe in a liberated and democratic Iraq.

[quantim]

Marriage is not a religious institution

But it is, you idiot, DAVE DYER.

I am at a loss to see how gay marriage can endanger the concept of marriage, as some claim

So a couple of homosexuals (boy or girl, need a DNA hookup somewhere) hang out at a sperm/embryo bank and cop a fetus from a depraved surrogate.  It goes to term.  A couple years go by and these same gaysters are at a Wal-Mart trying to buy a doll for the fake-notioned-child and can't find the homogenized model....

[CGTRWK]

Who could not be touched by the lines of gay marriage license applicants on Valentine's Day?

I was, right in the gorge.

[saveliberty]

This is about Benefits, not rights. If it were about rights, then the couples getting "married" wouldn't be looking for governmental sanction and wouldn't care about other people's reactions.

[Earl B.]

I finally figured out why gay marriages bother me. Contrary to Mr. Dyer's ignorant opinion, marriage is ALL ABOUT religion. I myself was married in a Catholic church, and consider myself married because I entered into the sacrament of marriage in the manner prescribed by my faith. I also had to get a marriage license, and fill out some paperwork for the state. But I NEVER consider myself to be officially married because the STATE sanctioned my relationship. In fact, I could give a rip about what the state has to say about me and my wife. In my view, it's none of the state's business.

I have written before here that I think the state should get out of the marriage game entirely. If people want to get married (within logical parameters), let them go to their preacher, rabbi, pastor, Imam, whatever and get married in the eyes of thier God. None of the State's business. None of my business, frankly. If people are getting married in strange churches whose teachings I don't accept, I can decide that I personally don't respect the "marriage" of those two people (or ten people, or people and houseplants, whatever). The point is, it's a personal opinion whether or not I want to respect or honor another's marriage (and whether they want to honor my marriage).

The problem with gay marriage as it's being pushed right now is that by getting the STATE to sanction the gay marriages, I no longer have the personal right (legally) to disrespect or dishonor a marriage whose legitimacy I disagree with.

And most importantly - here's the part I just figured out (maybe I'm slow) - the STATE, by honoring these marriages, is taking the OFFICIAL, GOVERMENT position that my religious faith is WRONG, that the teachings of my church are IN ERROR. That's what offends me. Isn't it the liberals who are always shouting about a separation between church and state? Well, these liberals are asking the Government to take an official position that it explicitly disagrees with my faith and my Church. It has singled out for favorable treatment those "religions" that hold a particular viewpoint on an issue of faith, and has disrespected as a matter of policy, my faith.

[King Black Robe]

A civil union as a sort of consolation prize marriage will not work because the concept of marriage is already deeply embedded in too many other legal and social institutions.

So we must break tradition because of strong tradition? Now there's a circular argument for you.

[Lucky Dog]

Marriage is not a religious institution, despite the efforts by some to claim it as such for their own purposes. It is a concept of civil law whereby the state recognizes a voluntary, public commitment between two people.

This gentleman’s ignorance of history is appalling. The concept of marriage predates any civil law. We have records (not civil law) of marriage that are more than 5,000 years old. In fact, the oldest recorded dispensation for marriage is Biblical, a religious document not civil law.