Louis Vuitton and Pink Chiffon: Why Conservatives Should Support Gay Marriage

Men's News Daily ^ | June 4, 2004 | John Phillips

[goldstategop]

This is a libertarian not a conservative argument. Conservatives believe timeless values don't change with the political seasons. Its our duty to uphold them even when they aren't popular cause these values are right no matter what era we live in.

[Asclepius]

And, if we don’t trust the government to deliver the mail why would we give them the power to determine who we sleep next to?

Nobody cares what consenting adult you sleep next to. The issue is marriage. Here is a free clue: conservatives are not (necessarily) libertarians.

The whole essay is an exercise in equivocation and missing the point. Except for the straw dogs about government intervention and that one red herring about sports contracts.

[GSWarrior]

The author doesn't really address the huge gulf that exists between those who consider homosexuality a blasphemy to God as opposed to those who are just grossed out.

[steplock]

NOT!

[GSlob]

There is a serious overlap between conservative and libertarian philosophies, not to be dismissed with a wave of the hand. One could say that the Founders (Jefferson comes to mind) exhibited quite a libertarian streak.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Logically it may not seem to compute, that turning a blind eye to shacking up with whoever you please equates to requiring that the state bless these things as "marriages." BUT in the devil's plan it's all part of the same strategy.

[valkyrieanne]

It's b.s. that gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy. Every argument made for gay marriage could be made for polygamy (privacy, consenting adults, "it's their culture," etc.)

[microgood]

These arguments are total fallacies. Legalizing gay marriage is as likely to lead to polygamy, incest and bestiality as it is to bring earthquakes, peace in the Middle East and a reunification of Ike and Tina Turner.

A marriage is simply a contract between two consenting adults, who both agree to the terms. These agreements happen every day in a variety of forms and rarely need the consent of politicians, the clergy or Fred Phelps.

This guy would not know logic if it kicked him in the teeth. If you give up the male/female part of marriage, why is just 2 people written in stone. It appears at that point anything is justifiable.

[zahal724]

Another thing to think about: If the government should stay out of personal contracts, then how will people get married? Well, there's religion, but there are precious few religions that support gay marriage, considering consumating a marriage is by sex, and gay sex is an ABHORENCE. I know you agree with me, but just putting it out there.

[Eastbound]

Can only count to 5 then has to start over with the other hand.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Why even people? Why can't I marry my cat and demand equal recognition?

[grellis]

I'm assuming your divorce was long and brutal. I've never heard marriage described as "excruciating minutia."

[Military family member]

Let’s be honest, if the do-gooder crowd was truly interested in ‘protecting marriage’ you’d think that they would want to make getting married easier and getting divorced harder. Why not criminalize adultery? I’d love to see Bill Clinton sign that “Defense of Marriage Act.” Or how about prohibiting divorce? Congressman Ken Calvert (R-CA) could sponsor that amendment – he has some experience in that department. And if they ever get really serious about saving the institution, they can always ban Elizabeth Taylor from ever exchanging nuptials again. The possibilities are endless.

The first thing everyone is probably going to ask or assume is that you are gay. I state that, but I find it immaterial.

Actually, adultery is illegal in the military. Check out what the UCMJ has to say on the subject.

The reason I highlight this part ofyour argument is that I find it the strongest part. Thousands of people are scream to protect marriage by outlawing gay marriage, but if you ask any of them about eliminating no-fault divorce, and they fail to see the connection. Why do we have a "cooling off" period for buying a hand gun, but anyone with the fee can get married, or get divorced in certain states. If you are a Catholic, and your spouse wants to divorce you, holy wedlock or not, you are forced to spend a tremendous amount of money getting an anullment, spend the rest of your life alone, or leave the church. Whose rights are being trampled then? I saw this happen to an aunt and to an uncle. Both were devout Catholics and both came home to find their spouse had cleaned out the house. Neither is Catholic today. My Uncle spent nearly ten years trying to put his life back together, especially as to role the church would play in that life. Granted each bishop can essentially determine this for his diocese, but many make it difficult.

My biggest problem with the entire issue of gay marriage is the same arguement I had against Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell policy." Isn't there something more important that we could be discussing? We are in the middle of a multiple-front war, and we're facing a shortage of military personnel due to low enlistments. We have an economy that is struggling valiantly to come back to life. We're facing a fuel shortage, and our infrastructure for producing addtional fuels is either hamstrung by the eco-movements, or hasn't been touch in nearly 30 years. You know, even if we had crude oil at a half the price it is today, and 1000 times the reserve, we still don't have the refining capacity to cover the increased demand.

Let's not forget social security, health care, education, home land security, the power grid, the struggling airline industry, etc, etc, etc.

While even these issues are not all monumentally huge, they are all far more important than what two consenting adults want to do on their own.

Conservatives need to fight the important fights, and I see gay marriage as a lose-lose battle for everyone.

The fact that Rosie O'Donnell has a wife, or my trying to change that relationship:

will not put food on my table for my children,

will not increase my business revenues,

will not bring the cost of gasoline down to a level where I can afford to travel more than 20 miles from home,

will not make our borders any more secure,

will help me pay my mortgage

will not allow my parents to spent their retirement funds on themselves instead of medication.

will not help me pay for a college education for four children.

I could go on and on.

Let's focus on truly important issues. This is not one of them, unless anyone can tell me how it impacts any of the above.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Conservatives need to fight the important fights, and I see gay marriage as a lose-lose battle for everyone.

I'm sorry, but you missed that putting these turkeys on the list of privilegees will do a real number on this country. I hear tell that God will not be very pleased either.

[grellis]

Why not criminalize adultery?

Unfortunately, we decriminalized adultery. I am all for the immediate extinction of "no fault" divorce. I am horrified that fellow Catholics come from all across the globe to have their marriages annulled here in the US because its easier to have it done here than anywhere else on earth. I'm disgusted with many US Catholic bishops for (among other things) allowing this to go on.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Why does not the headquarters of this religious body put the kibosh on such clergy, instead of sitting back and basically saying "what me worry, God will curse them in due time." If anyone had the authority structure on earth to do that if it wished, the RCC does. I mean it's unlikely that these huge cathedrals will go off and join another denomination if they do.

[grellis]

When Roe V. Wade was declared a federally protected right back in 1973, do you think anyone realized at that time that the result would be, on average, one million pre-born deaths a year? That women would be allowed to abort into their third trimester--legally murdering a viable human? When you step onto a slippery slope such as this, there is only one thing you can be sure of: our society will race to the bottom with all possible speed.

I want something better than the aftermath of Roe for my children's generation.

[PolitBase]

Be careful: slavery and miscegenation prohibitions used to be "timeless laws."

[grellis]

I will never, ever understand why it is that the American Catholic heirarchy is so completely blase when it comes to annullment. It simply defies explanation. Those in charge, not surprisingly, don't even try to explain it.