Some Conservatives Backing Gay Marriage

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.

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."

How can anyone possibly be called conservateve who advocates radical change in the most basic foundation of society?

First, I never said I advocate it. If this issue had never come up, I certainly wouldn't have brought it up, the only thing I've ever advocated is a halt to gay bashing, and that would be without hate crime laws.

As far as heterosexual marriage being "the most basic foundation of society" goes, I'd probably identify extended family as the most basic foundation, and we've gone from having huge houses where a dozen family members live, to small houses where nuclear families, and single parent families live. Nobody voted on that, either. In any case, even if gays get the right to have a civil marriage recognized by the state, nobody's going to take away the rights of heterosexual people to find each other, fall in love, have children, and keep the cycle going, just as its always been done. Nobody's going to force churches to marry gays, when its against their tenets. I don't recall any discrimination suits against the Roman Catholic Church for refusing to marry people when one spouse-to-be is a divorced person.

Or is it your position that words have no meaning at all but what you or Bill Clinton choose to ascribe to them at some moment?

Thanks for lumping me with Bill Clinton, I'm not sure that rises to the level of a personal attack, normally frowned upon in this forum, but I'll let it pass. Words have meanings, but in a living language, the meaning of the words changes all the time. When our Constitution was written, "the people" were considered only white men, over the age of 21, who owned property. They were the only ones who had the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution with its Bill of Rights, I'm glad the definition of "the people" has been expanded considerably. Perhaps you're not.

If you support gay "marriage" then you cannot be a conservative because all of your other views must be derivative from that basic desire for fundamental change in the basic millenia old institution.

Did freedom of the press derive from marriage? Did the right to avoid unreasonable search and seizure derive from marriage? Did the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments derive from (etc., although you may get some clever remarks from some folks here on that last one!) Marriage is but one institution in our society. It was a religious institution that became infused with the civil government, and as the civil government is supposed to be religion-neutral in its application of benefits and responsibilities, it is inevitable that either marriage would change, or that government would veer away from marital status as a means of conferring rights and duties. Simply separating sexual behavior from the production of offspring would have caused this change, even if homosexuality did not exist.

Eliminating marriage as a basic foundation for the society(which is what gay-marriagists advocate)...

A very few homosexual advocates from the crazy side have been quoted as wanting to destroy marriage. I don't remember any election, they were not selected to speak for the majority. Using their words and actions to represent what gay people want when they ask for the right to marry, is like using the behavior of the aforementioned Bill Clinton as an example of how most straight people treat their marriage. The shrill voices of a few anarchists do not define the positions of all the members of the groups they claim to represent.

How can one a conservative be an advocate for the overthrow of the Republic?

Here's a little prediction for you: After the SCOTUS finally rules in the next five to ten years that gay marriage is legal, the Republic will still be here. Business people will still risk capital to try to make an honest buck, people will still get up and go to their jobs, and there will still be babies born to heterosexual couples who still go to church. Just like what happened after we allowed interracial couples to marry.

Lefgalizing homosexual "marriage" to be on the same plane with real marriage is, in fact destroying marriage as a basic component of society. The extended family is, in fact, derivative of marriage. Homosexual "marriage" is one facet of the left attempt to eliminate all mediating institutions between the citizen and the central government. It is in the same category as the drive toward government creches for the rearing and indoctrination of children which we see in the attempts to force children into the public schools at earlier and earlier ages. A homosexual can be a conservative. I know one such quite well. But any person who advocates radical change is by the very definition of the word "conservative" NOT conservative. What are you conserving? Do you desire to return to some mythical past where anyone could marry anyone or any number? No such is yet in the history books but perhaps the NEA can take care of that in due course. The belief may be heartfelt and sincere and emotionally desireable to some but it is not conservative. There are beliefs that are conservative with which I do not agree. One is protectionism. That goes all the way back to the founding of the Republic and forever before but I think it misguided and I do not consider myself to have the conservative view in that category. I do not strive to legitimize my economic ideas by calling them conservative just because the people with whom I am most apt to be in agreement are conservative.

Lefgalizing homosexual "marriage" to be on the same plane with real marriage is, in fact destroying marriage as a basic component of society.

Want to stop gay marriage? Convince people in the middle, a lot of whom are now temporarily "uncomfortable" with gay marriage, that it really would lead to destruction of their marriages. Or their kids' future marriages. Keep in mind, they might have kids who turn out to be gay.

Homosexual "marriage" is one facet of the left attempt to eliminate all mediating institutions between the citizen and the central government.

Maybe its gay people trying to get the benefit of that institution to protect themselves from that central government that you fear. That's the way it plays in the media. If marriage is such a good thing, why wouldn't gay people want to have its stabilizing benefits?

It is in the same category as the drive toward government creches for the rearing and indoctrination of children which we see in the attempts to force children into the public schools at earlier and earlier ages.

And this has what to do with gay marriage? Now you're just blathering here.

What are you conserving?

Liberty. The right to be left alone, and the right for law-abiding citizens to enjoy equal rights with each other, regardless of what religious beliefs (or lack thereof) we all hold.

Do you desire to return to some mythical past where anyone could marry anyone or any number?

You mean like Old Testament Biblical figures that had multiple concubines? No, but nobody outside of some sun-baked brains out in the Idaho, Nevada, and Utah deserts have really been vocal about wanting such a thing. I certainly think its possible to define a sanctioned relationship as one-to-one, since you only have one of you to give to another person, and when that other person gives of themself to you, it can be an equal relationship.

I do not strive to legitimize my economic ideas by calling them conservative just because the people with whom I am most apt to be in agreement are conservative.

You point out the fact that many conservatives are predominately economic conservatives. While that is so, there are non-economic conservative positions, such as the right to life, strong military defense, and diversity of thought and speech (anti-PC, if you will) that unite us.

Glad to hear that you know a conservative who is homosexual. Have you asked that person how they feel about this issue? They might be able to articulate from a position that I could only imagine. Believe me, if that person can show you a different viewpoint, you can bet that folks in the mushy middle can all find someone like that, too. If not, the news media will be glad to introduce them to sympathetic lives that would like the right to get married.

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.