Posted on 08/07/2022 6:00:40 PM PDT by Ennis85
When a significant number of House Republicans voted for a recent bill to recognize same-sex marriage at the federal level, those who most vocally made the case for the legislation were the younger members, especially Kat Cammack of Florida.
The split in the GOP vote, with 47 voting in favor and 157 against, mirrors the divide within the wider conservative movement. At Young America’s Foundation’s National Conservative Student Conference last week, several students spoke to National Review about their receptiveness to a national gay-marriage law. But their views incorporated a respect not only for religious freedom but for the religious institution of marriage itself.
Garrison Allen, who’s about to enter the University of Iowa law school, distinguished between marriage as a religious practice and as a simple union created for tax benefits. “Generally, I think that gay marriage should be legalized,” he told NR, “at least, in the governmental sense, while at the same time, we should respect religious institutions’ beliefs and not force them to be involved with gay marriages if they don’t choose to do so.”
Similarly, Catholic University of America junior Alexander Diaz, who is gay, while recognizing that he likely never be allowed to marry within the church, said he values “what the Catholic Church teaches on humility and service, and everything else that it shares.” He added, “So, even though the church doesn’t necessarily agree with my current lifestyle, I still think that the church has a lot to teach not just myself, but all members of the community.”
“My opinion is that marriage is a strictly religious institution,” said University of North Georgia sophomore Daniel Jackson. “It’s not something that the government should be involved in at all, and so these legal definitions of marriage, I think they ought to go away.” Jackson would be open to a “common-law marriage” available for both gay and straight couples, so long as it were left up to the states, he said.
Their views are out of step with conservative-movement orthodoxy. YAF’s official position, for example, is opposition to gay marriage, said spokeswoman Kara Zupkus.
“We understand that there’s a diversity of opinions on it within the conservative movement,” she said, “and, of course, we’re not going to shun someone or look down on them for being gay. But our position is that [marriage] is kind of a fundamentally religious institution, and that should not be redefined.”
Speakers at the conference echoed YAF’s views. Chief among them was Princeton professor Robert P. George, who, on a panel with Ryan Anderson, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, defined marriage as “the relationship that brings together a man and a woman in a permanent and exclusive bond as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children born of that union.” The state has a particular interest in endorsing and regulating marriage, distinct from other religious ceremonies that are private, such as baptisms or bar mitzvahs, because of its capacity to produce children, he argued.
While the students’ views are different from those of more long-standing members of the conservative movement, their reasons for holding them have nothing to do with the Left’s expansive conception of rights. For Diaz, a federal recognition of same-sex marriage would reflect the rights guaranteed in the 14th Amendment. “The Constitution is not à la carte, you can’t just pick and choose which rights you want to defend,” he told NR, quoting Cammack’s defense of the Respect for Marriage Act when it first passed the House. (Though the freshman Florida congresswoman spoke at the conference, her remarks did not include commentary on gay marriage, and her speech was cut short when House members were called for a vote.)
Diaz and Allen, who is also gay, both articulated their belief that extending marriage to same-sex couples is a way of encouraging them to adopt a more traditional lifestyle.
“You are actually protecting a traditional institution, which is marriage,” Diaz said, “even though it may not be the traditional definition of marriage. Nonetheless, it is a traditional conservative institution, and thus, through the process of gay marriage, you have, essentially, gay people accepting a conservative idea.”
As Allen sees it, gay marriage can help further the government’s interest in preserving family structure. If gay people do not have the incentive of marriage, “what ends up happening is this kind of countercultural sexual revolution that we see today, which is highly immoral and leads to a lot worse decisions,” he said.
Others, such as Jackson, believe that the government’s sanctioning of marriage — gay or straight — has led to a degradation of the institution.
“I do think that marriage should be returned to the private sector,” he said, “and consider this also: The divorce rates are through the roof. And, as someone who has come from a recently broken household, I think that it would be helpful if we as Americans, conservatives, and Christians took marriage more seriously and not just as some legal contract that can be broken or vacated at any time.”
Though they do not hold the traditional conservative position on gay marriage, these students’ justifications for their beliefs are based on a thoughtful application of conservative ideology. They do not take their inspiration from the left-wing mantra of “if it feels good, do it,” or libertine notions of individual freedom. The Left has cheapened the institution of marriage by conceiving of it as just another way to express one’s personal preferences. But these young conservatives are careful not to fall into that trap. Their positions deserve consideration, as they will play a role in the future of the conservative movement. Wherever they take it, they will be guided by principle.
Count me in with the supporters of gay marriage. Must be that I’m young at heart and know too many good, stable gay relationships. If there’s two Republicans in a primary, I’ll vote with that as an issue. If the Republican is against it in the election, I’ll ignore my preferences on the issue and vote for the Republican, in all cases. Vote Republican as highest priority, then personal issues as secondary. My highest priority is getting Trump back in. Next to that, everything is secondary.
It IS the hill to die on. Because society dies if we don’t protect it.
It’s the ultimate hill to die on.
I’m in the older generation of conservatives. But I think a case can be made that allowing same-sex marriage is positive for society because it incentivizes stability and at least a semi-normal life for homosexuals (in contrast with a dissolute life of promiscuity and orgies).
Philosopher Cy Curnin once wisely and astutely noted that one thing leads to another:
https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/fixx/onethingleadstoanother.html
Saw The Fixx in 83 when they opened for my favorite band A Flock Of Seagulls. Love their song “Red Skies” among others. Could see them next month in Lexington, Ky but it’s an hour after the Kentucky-Florida football game starts.
Disappointed to see Kat Cammack supports gay marriage. Have liked what I’ve heard from her on Laura Ingraham’s show. Supporters of gay marriage also tend to want drug legalization. Like Nancy Mace. Don’t care how accepted it becomes, the acceptance of gay marriage says to me a person’s thought process is screwed up.
“I’m STILL waiting for them to come up with a definition of ‘consummation’.”
Bet it was only a very few years ago that a man and a woman could have received a judgment of nullity or invalidity from even the civil authorities if they had only engaged in acts of sodomy. Probably still can. It goes without saying, members of the same sex cannot consummate a marriage.
We have to say we are for gay marriage and then move on. Even though social conservatives may be against it. There is zero benefit for us to oppose gay marriage at this point.
They could be joined together in a civil union.
And this is why we lose. Conservatives swallowing liberal BS hook line and sinker.
It's actually quite simple. Marriage is embedded in our very nature as human beings. It pre-existed government. ALL government. Governments were drawn up in a world where marriage already existed.
Even if the people vote for this abomination 100%-0%, no government has ANY right to redefine a institution of human nature.
God and nature defined marriage. It cannot be redefined by men. Anyone who thinks otherwise is dead wrong.
Are you out of your freaking gourd? No one who believes in limited government could possibly allow a government to just redefine a universal human institution that predates all government.
I agree with you, and would vote accordingly. I would prefer the non believers be joined in civil unions, not much different than a business partnership.
Marriage is marriage, and it’s not for homo’s or atheists
Ok great, then let’s not muddy the water by even theoretically “allowing” on a state basis what no government can allow.
Marriage being a natural human institution it doesn’t require the Christian religion to take part in it. Unbelievers can marry the same as anyone else, as they always have in Greek and Roman times, or deep in the jungles.
Christ raises marriage to a supernatural sacrament, but the purely natural benefits still apply to those outside of the Body.
We agree that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman. I have no idea why you keep attacking me for saying I would support others entering into partnerships, the same as business people do all the time.
My bigger issue that I originally mentioned is that I am 100% against the supreme court rewriting the constitution and making up rights like abortion and gay marriage out of thin air. If people want those rights, there is a method of amending the constitution which needs to be followed.
We agree on the result...but I think your logic used to get there is a little shaky. The right to marriage does not come from the Constitution, it comes from natural law.
So even a duly passed Constitutional amendment would be absolutely null and void if it tried to redefine marriage.
Do you agree with that premise?
It is quite simple...Any society that does not know the difference between a man and a woman does not deserve to exist.
Apparently we have to support these abominations because liberals told us we have to. Because they love us and want the best for us ya know.
*spit*
Modern conservatism = radical progressivism going the speed limit.
Folks,
Homosexual perversion is a BEHAVIOUIR - it is not an identity
Behaviors can be modified.
Is it an acceptable behavior?
Not in my book and not for society.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.