Posted on 02/14/2004 1:43:51 PM PST by gawd
BOSTON - In the battle over same-sex marriage, liberals have been front and center, pushing to give gays and lesbians the right to wed.
But there is at least a small block of conservatives who are on the same page, often for different reasons: They're loath to tinker with a constitution, for one, or they want to see more people — gay or straight — make commitments.
The stance is a departure from that of most conservatives, a division that supporters of gay marriage hope to exploit.
"I don't see the response to gay marriage as unified at all on the conservative side," said Glenn H. Reynolds, a supporter of gay marriage rights and publisher of the generally conservative blog Instapundit.com.
Most recent polls have shown fairly wide skepticism about gay marriage. Democrats are nearly evenly split on the matter, while most Republicans oppose it.
That split was evident this past week in the Massachusetts Legislature when three proposed amendments to the state constitution that would have banned gay marriage lost by a handful of votes each time. (Each amendment also would have allowed civil unions in some form.)
After two days of intense debate that went well into the evening, legislators failed to reach a consensus and decided to recess until next month.
If lawmakers pass such a constitutional amendment this year, it would put it on course to end up on the ballot in November 2006 — two years after court-ordered weddings are to begin taking place in the state.
A vocal contingent of conservatives are furious that activist judges have forced a revision of the law, and adamant that the millenia-old institution of marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples.
Gay marriage would not be "the end of civilization," said David Horowitz, a prominent conservative who once opposed a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage but has changed his mind in light of the Massachusetts decision. "But I am an opponent of judicial tyranny. And I think there's a lot of conservatives like me."
But while many conservatives oppose activist judges, they also resist tinkering with the state and federal constitutions. On states-rights grounds, prominent right-leaning columnists like George Will have opposed a proposed federal amendment, as have key lawmakers who otherwise oppose gay marriage, like Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga.
A few conservative commentators have articulated a case that goes beyond opposing a constitutional amendment, and actually support gay marriage.
"The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments," David Brooks wrote recently in The New York Times, praising the virtues of fidelity. "We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage."
Brooks has been joined by a few fellow pundits on the right, notably Andrew Sullivan, and a handful of libertarian bloggers who say the government has no place meddling in the relationships of its citizens.
Sensing chinks in the armor, gay-rights activists are appealing to family values or a hands-off approach to the Constitution.
The gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign has touted the virtues of marriage both for gay families and America in ads that ran in establishment newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post.
But in the ads it ran in places like Omaha, Neb., and Indianapolis, Human Rights Campaign took a different tack, appealing to conservatives not to support a federal amendment banning same-sex marriage. In one, an elderly woman stares into the camera and says "I'm pretty conservative, but I can't support amending the constitution over this."
Seth Kilbourn, HRC's national field director, said his group believes the country's conservative leadership is split on gay marriage. His group is trumpeting the message that amending the constitution to discriminate is wrong.
"Under that message falls the conservative argument: You don't use the constitution to resolve these kinds of social debates," Kilbourn said.
The Log Cabin Republicans (news - web sites), a group of gay Republicans, is also focusing on the constitutional argument.
"We have found some conservative Republicans and a handful of senators, Democrats and Republicans, who are probably never going to be with us on equality but would probably cut their arm off before they'd mess with the constitution," said Mark Mead, the group's political director.
Social conservatives say such arguments betray the cause.
Genevieve Wood, vice president of communications for the Family Research Council, accuses Brooks and others of failing to be "true conservatives" when it comes to gay marriage.
While social conservatives and libertarians "agree on lower taxes, less government involvement," she said, "when it comes to redefining the family, we don't think that's for government to do."
The're probably some of the same ones who support open borders, unlimited government spending, campaign finance reform, sucking up to the Kennedy cabal, etc. Or are those just leftist nuts who have infiltrated the conservative ranks and run as Republicans.
Probably applies equally to pedophiles. But then that is next on the agenda.
However, the founding father acknowledged that they might not have everything right. If they thought their philosophy was perfect, they wouldn't have included either the means to amend the constitution or the 9th Amendment.
We have abjured impeachment of judges for anything more than simple venality and react to any legal atrocity by solemnly declaring that it is the law of the land and though we might not like it we must obey it. Earlier presidents did not tremble before judges. Modern presidents and the Congress rule only as permitted by the judges. When the Republic depends for its survival on electing the right man as president in order that the right men may be chosen as judges, then the basis for the Republic has ceased to exist. The illusion of the Republic exists only insofar as judges choose to allow it.
The concept is, in fact, oxymoronic, self-contradictory, and just plain insensible. Anyone- no exceptions- who backs homosexual union to be defined as marriage is NOT conservative.
We live in a day when there is no longer anything considered a "self evident truth." Under such circumstances how can one make a logical case against anything? When there are no common values, no common culture, no time honored traditions held, only specious arguments and moral relevance all things are possible.
that means nothing. to have your life dictated by 18th century wasps, some of them slave-owners, is absurd.
Well, obviously not if the parents are gay.
But not before the sissies of the country decide guns should be sin-taxed like cigarettes.
WARNING: I'm wearing my all-inclusive flame proof suit. Having given y'all fair warning...A conservative CANNOT be in favor of gay marriage, civil unions, or any kind of "joining" of same sex couples, or of same sex couples where one or more of the participants didn't used to be what he/she is now.
"By birth" males and females may marry. All others need not apply. That's the way God meant it to be. Do it any other way and you'll incur his wrath, if not now then certainly eventually.
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."Isn't obvious that a right "retained by the people" is to be "married" and/or have a sexual relationship with the person of your choice without any government interference?
To read that amendment your way would also make prostitution legal as it is nothing more than having "a sexual relationship with the person of your choice without any government interference" would it not?
Also your interpretation would seem to not allow for laws that prohibit the use of narcotics for recreation. Is there anything that you would not consider a "right" given under the ninth?
Thats a red herring. The issue is whether the men the wrote the Constitution intended the 9th Amendment to protect homosexual marriage.
Can you say with a straight face that was their intent?
Yes or No will suffice.
Another red herring. And the typical Slave argument from the libertarians.
The issue is whether the INTENT of the 9th Amendment was to protect homosexual marriage. The actions of the men who wrote it demonstrates not.
It's very likely that one of those men really is the twins' father.
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.