Posted on 06/07/2004 4:54:39 PM PDT by JPhill9123
Louis Vuitton and Pink Chiffon: Why Conservatives Should Support Gay Marriage
June 4, 2004
by John Phillips
There are few issues in American life that can make seemingly normal people turn dippy on a dime -- and since Justin Timberlake hasn’t disrobed any member of the Jackson family of late -- the never ending saga over gay marriage has stepped up to fill the void.
Like most conservatives, I’ve always believed that when it comes to protecting liberty the following rules apply: (1) individuals know better than politicians, (2) the states know better than the feds and (3) those who think that the Constitution should grow like Topsy are always wrong. Unfortunately, when it comes to gay marriage many conservatives suddenly develop amnesia. It’s the only issue that I know of that can make committed Republicans get down on their hands and knees and beg for government regulation. Liberals from coast to coast should take these revelations as a direct assault on their livelihood – if Republicans are going start legislating the excruciating minutia of every day life, what use will the country have for Democrats?
Instead of assuming that legalized marriage between homosexuals would lead to an increased amount of open bars and country club dinners in August, some social conservatives are giving hysterical predictions of societal chaos.
Consider some of the following quotes:
While pushing a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage Colorado Republican Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave frets, “If we redefine marriage, anything goes…You could allow polygamy, group marriage.”
Republican New Hampshire state Representative Bob Letourneau says that things aren’t relative in the Granite State, “We do not allow cousins to marry in New Hampshire…you cannot marry your sister or brother, and we don’t allow blind people to drive.” How novel.
But the best quote comes from Nicholas DiMarzio, the Catholic bishop of Brooklyn, who ponders, “Why can’t we have marriages between people and pets?” Hmm, I think a better question would be ‘what is wrong with relationships (that include marriage) between consenting adults?’ But the powers that be in the Catholic Church may not be the best ones to answer that little mystery.
Based on these prognostications you’d think that allowing gays to engage in holy matrimony would result in a mad rush of homosexual Mormons wishing to wed multiple dogs that may or may not be from the same litter.
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.
Look at it this way: If Kobe Bryant decided to re-sign with the Lakers, you wouldn’t expect him to need Cardinal Roger Mahoney’s permission. (Although, if more allegations of sexual assault emerge against the NBA superstar, the good Cardinal could provide some helpful tips on how to quietly transfer him to another team.)
Why should homosexuals be treated any differently?
Banning gay marriage has nothing to do with discriminating against homosexuals, social conservatives say -- It’s just about ‘protecting the institution of marriage.’ And thank God for that! You never know when Al Gayda is going to strike next. If the federal government wasn’t so successful at ending poverty and drug addiction, I’d really be worried!
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.
In reality, this movement is not about protecting marriage – it is about a majority of Americans being grossed out by the thought of two men kissing. I call it the ‘ew factor.’ But there are a lot of things out there that make us wince, yet we don’t prohibit them by law. Many people would be disgusted if they saw two dwarfs making out – but that doesn’t mean we should prohibit Gary Bauer from getting married. Besides, don’t our legislators have taxes to cut, wars to win and worthless social programs to slash?
Americans should always be careful before giving the government and clergy control over private agreements between private parties. After all, if conservatives are willing to give Big Brother the power to tell you who you can or can’t marry, why get upset when liberals want to dictate what your salary should be, what you should pay for rent or whether or not you really need your sports utility vehicle? You’re either for big, intrusive government or you aren’t.
Conservatives are better than this. We know that power is a zero-sum game – when you give power to the government you take it away from individuals. 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?
Let’s leave the arranged marriages up to Aztec chiefs and Hollywood reality show producers – where they belong.
John Phillips is a student at Claremont Graduate University and operates the website www.johnphillipsworld.com -- His commentaries have appeared in the Orange County Register.
In my opinion the government should do just that. Get out of the marriage business completely.
Which had little or no support in history as practiced here. Slavery was usually something less than chattel slavery, more like indentured servitude where the master HAD to free the slave if the price was presented. And racism is largely a modern curse.
The government has no interest in seeing homosexuals stay together. It is irrelevant. The government does have an interest in the general moral sense of citizens. Gay marriage offends the moral and logical sense of most. It is contrary to our biological make-up and government has no obligation to endorse it. In fact, it has an obligation not to. Marriage is completely intertwined in the fabric of our government and culture. It is the foundational structure of human life, not just culture. A forced redefinition to satisfy the unnatural urges of a few is foolishness. Every orgasm is not owed a marriage license.
Well said #2. Can I borrow that line?
I condemn Roe V. Wade as being murder. But the problem with the logic here is that the jump from the first trimester to partial-birth abortion is not nearly as slippery a slope as equating gay marriage to bigamy, bestiality, incest, child molestation or anything else.
Fact: Bigamy is legal in many religions other than Christianity and Judaism. The United States was founded in part as a place for religious freedom.
Fact: Most victims of child molestation and incest are victimized by family members and trusted friends. Check the FBI stats if you don't believe me. Does this mean we want to eliminate heterosexual marriage and families as well?
The arguments against gay marriage are similar to the arguments for gun control. More people are murdered each year with knifes, automobiles and blunt objects, than with fire arms. Yet I don't see Ralph Nader suing the Louisville Slugger company.
It's simply the wrong time for this argument and people are arguing the wrong sides of the issue. It only stays in the forefront because liberal members of the media are pushing it.
This reminds me of the furor over "The last Temptation of Christ." I was asked by dozens of well-meaning, deeply religious friends to sign petitions to prevent anyone from seeing it. I refused to sign and went to see it. I did not lose my faith in the church. I simply didn't like the movie. But hundreds and thousands of people went to see that movie because of the protests by the religious right. If nothing had been done, it probably would have died its death in the box office much sooner. I see this issue the same way, much ado about nothing.
There was a time when the gays simply asked to be left to live their lives as they saw fit. The vast majority of Americans, even those who don't necessarily approve of that lifestyle for religious or other reasons, are willing to do that.
By asking for gay marraige, now the gay community wants not simply to be tolerated, but for society's approval and subsidy. Because that's what marraige is. Besides being a religious ceremony, it's society publicly approving and subsidizing a relationship. Marraiges are subsidized by society through the tax code, marraige and insurance benefits and other means.
We don't give this to heterosexual marraiges simply because we like of them more. Society encourages heterosexual marraiges because it has a stake in the success of those relationship. When a man and woman share a bed every night, eventually they produce children. And we've long since recognized that it is healthier for the children and, by extention for all of us, for them to grow up in a stable household with a mother and father. There is simply no substitute. Men bring things to the raising of children that women can't and vice versa. It's why up until recently, society has discouraged men and women living together without being married; because they don't have the committment of those who are married and children in that kind of household don't have the same kind of stability.
Gay marraiges cannot produce children. Society simply doesn't have any interest in whether gay relationships stand or fall. If a gay couple wants to share a household, nothing stops them. If they want to write each other into their wills, they can. If they want to have a ceremony to commemorate their realtionship, they are free to do so. And if a private company want to offer benefits to gay couples, well, it's their bottom line. But don't ask through government for the rest of us to subsidize and approve relationships we don't have any stake in the outcome of.
Social conservatives did not choose the time or place for this argument, it was thrust upon us by out of control courts who believe the Constitution assigns them the power to decide what is and what is not a right and consistent with the mores of European Societies.
Government aquiesence to equating same sex marriage to heterosexual marriage necessarily means that public policy will not be able to take a neutral position vis a vis religion in the public square.
My family has been and will be taught that the act of homosexuality is a sin while the government publically procalims it is a transcendent liberty right deserving of respect.
There is tension there and the government promotion of anti religious dogma can not be reconciled with the neutrality demanded by the First Amendment.
Like Canada and Europe it won't be long after Goodridge, if it is allowed to stand, that the Bible will become hate speech and the preaching of the Bible will demand criminal sanction.
And thats not a slippery slope or a logical fallacy, it's the truth.
As a Catholic, a father of four, a man with a wife in a foreign country, a business owner and a taxpayer, I'm all for worry about God and my soul, my children, my wife, my business and my employees and keeping good with Uncle Sam. Explain to me how what a bunch of people in San Francisco or Massachusetts effects any of that.
I will tell you. It pulls the focus of the state legislators, senators and house members away from issues such as our schools, our roads, our taxes, budget deficits, and, let's not forget, A WAR.
If the time, energy and money spent on countless hours of congressional debate on gay marriage brings my wife home from Kosovo, then by all means, let's have that discussion. In fact, let's drop everything else and start now.
I have the luxury of writing these comments because I'm not paid to run the country. Let the people who run the country focus their attention on things that matter.
How is this anti-religious dogma? As a conservative Catholic, I do not feel that my religious rights are being trampled upon by anyone. Like it or not, the right to have no religion at all is also a right.
There was an interest case in New Hampshire where a college professor was sued for discrimination for stating in class as an example of a similie that "a belly dancer is like jello on a vibrator." He won with the argument that the First Amendment grants us the right to free speech; it does not grant us the right to not be offended.
Ultimately, this argument smacks in both directions of the P.C. Police telling us what we can and cannot say or do. Whatever happened to the America that embraced the patriot who said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."
Remember when aborton was only allowed in the first trimester? Well lo and behold 30 years later we can't even agree on a law to make infantacide illegal. Once you start tampering with the moral underpinnings of a society such as respect for life, family and property then it's open season.
You're young and Californian, John.
In early America, sodomites were hung by their necks until they were dead. Adulterous Quaker witches (predecessors to present feminists) were tied to carttails and had the tops of their dresses pulled down. They were then beaten and sent out of town.
If our founders had found themselves in the current situation we have with activist, Californian Ideology judges, they would have pass the Marriage Amendment quickly. Thomas Jefferson, one of our two most left-thinking and immoral founders, only wanted homosexuals castrated.
To hell with "Outright" liberaltarian moves, and I've seen enough from the lilting Cali social left.
Furthermore, the assertion that tolerance of homosexuality in any form does not constitute a moral domino is itself a straw-man. The same argument has been made on topics such as pornography and prostitution since the early 1960's when increasing tolerance for amoral behavior began. Indeed, we can already see the next domino in the activities of organizations like NAMBLA. The slippery slope is very real and very, very steep.
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.)
Indeed. The author makes a bald assertion, then proceeds af if the assertion was some sort of contention he had actually proven! This is a left-leaner, probably athiest LINO which is really just this side of an anarchist.
I have put together what I consider to be a strong argument, not relying on the Bible of how the foundation of OUR society is the Nuclear Family, which is built on Marrige an designed to produce and protect children.
It is sad that divorce has undermined this, but it is also sad that we have almost half of the US in the New Socialist Party. That doesn't mean we abandon the underlying foundation of freedom simply because it has been chipped away.
The southern California and northeastern contingents have done nothing more than shoot fathers' rights in the foot and hold us back.
And the Libertarian Party, in lack of effect, doesn't exist.
What's needed is to get the government completely out of the marriage business. Let consenting adults enter into whatever personal and/or business contracts they like, and let the courts enforce them just like any contract. If churches/synagogues/mosques/whatevers want to have their own definitions of "marriage", they're free to do so, but it shouldn't have anything to do with the government.
I don't want my tax dollars supporting the infrastructure that hands out marriage licenses and divorces to the likes of J-Lo and Britney Spears, any more than evangelical Christians want their tax dollars supporting gay marriages and divorces.
Whoops! I guess I always had a Jeffersonian view of Libertarians. That's why I love FR -- I can learn and sometimes I can do it without TOOO much pain!
Thanks for the clarification -- but I at least was right about the "anarchist" part. :)
When government promotes that which contradicts the teachings of your church in public venues that is by definition anti-religious dogma. Whether you feel trampled upon or not is inconsequential to the fact that the government has decided to promote, in direct contravention, that which your church teaches is a sinful act.
Further, it has nothing to do with having a religion or not having religion. It has to do with government teaching your children in public school that Heather having two Daddy's is the moral equivalent of Heather having a Mommy and Daddy. Being a Catholic, I know that violates Catholic Dogma.
There was an interest case in New Hampshire where a college professor was sued for discrimination for stating in class as an example of a similie that "a belly dancer is like jello on a vibrator." He won with the argument that the First Amendment grants us the right to free speech; it does not grant us the right to not be offended.
A shame the courts waste time on moronic cases. And I don't claim a right not to be offended. I do claim the the "establishment" clause of the First Amendment requires neutrality from the government vis a vis secularism and religion.
Ultimately, this argument smacks in both directions of the P.C. Police telling us what we can and cannot say or do.
Garbage, every American has the same rights and privileges. What the judiciary has done is to confer special rights on certain persons totally dependent on their engaging in homosexual acts. If not, then every "marriage" should be available to all and I can marry my grandkids so they have access to my Social Security Survivors benefits and inheritance rights without the tax man taking his share.
Whatever happened to the America that embraced the patriot who said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."
You can say any damn thing you please whether it offends or not.
By the way, you addressed not one point I made in the previous post so I'm not holding out much hope for this one either.
Maybe that's why Jefferson (being the libertarian he was) reduced the punishment for sodomy to be merely castration instead of death.
Or something like that.
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.