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.
"...and sometimes I can do it without TOOO much pain!"
I didn't intend to come off at you at all. But the Libertarian deception does anger me. A few years ago, ('90s), I didn't know, as most people don't. Someone filled me in, and having been fooled once, I've been rebroadcasting it ever since.
Sincerely, you're a strong one.
Mr Phillips is quite correct.
And you didn't. I appreciate the info you provided. I think you appreciate the FR joke about the pain part (have you ever been factually wrong on a post?? Owch!).
I'm with you on the Libertarians -- we have to challenge them to signpost exactly what they mean when they declare rhemselves as such.
Daltry had it right "we won't get fooled again!"
I concur, we did not bring this argument to life. But why the "mores of European Societies." Many families left Europe because of the European mores, including those which dictated which religion what proper and which was not. Given the current mores in Western Europe, particularly France, I see little to be gained from such a following.
I am not for gay marriage. I am not against gay marriage. I simply feel that this issue is getting too much air time and is taking time away from other issues far more important, such as the war against terrorism. Government acquiescence 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.
There will be a time to argue this issue. but not now. My point here is that I believe this election is far more important than gay marriage. I can even see discussing it to a point. But what I am seeing on both sides of the aisle is an attempt by both parties--both being prodded by the media--to make this the pivotal issue in this election. And I firmly believe there are more important issues. My family has been and will be taught that the act of homosexuality is a sin while the government publicly proclaims it is a transcendent liberty right deserving of respect.
My family was taught the same thing. My family also taught tolerance to those who are different from our family. I will continue to teach this to my children. My children are young (13, 11, 8,7) and are very fond of pointing out the faults of their siblings, while ignoring their own foibles.
I have on several occasions pointed to the passages in the Bible that say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I also like "Take the plank out of your own eye..."
I do not write this accuse you of fault or misdeed. I am trying to teach my children to be good people, to police their own actions first and foremost, and not to worry about what others may do.
I think the government needs to do the same thing. Stay out of the issue. Ignore it. Let it die a natural death. If we teach our children the values we were taught, we have nothing to fear from what others do. 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
Again, these are slippery slope arguments. Show me the connection. Show me the steps. Another problem with a slippery slope is that it is too easy. What are the steps in between? You are arguing that a court ruling in Massachusetts allowing gay marriage will lead to the Bible being outlawed.
There is no logic in that, period. Only chaos theory supports it.
The fact is that according to Catholic teaching, a gay couple can attend mass and receive holy communion as long as they remain celibate.
That "ewww factor" is revulsion, a normal reaction to what is repulsive, unnatural. Thats it. There is no debate for
someone who has this visceral reaction. That is most of the folks in the country. Me too.
Abortion helped solidify the "religious right", "christian coalition" "moral majority".
This issue will expand this movement's size, power and influence. Nearly half of the folks in this country are evangelicals, enough to vote for whatever they want.
And they do not want this.
Organize and unify, get em to recognize thier power,
and thats it. Game over. I think it is coming. Most folks nationwide do not realise they will be forced to accept this in thier states. Full faith and credit, right?
They are now seriously troubled by this. Add in the Catholic Church's pressure on abortion, that single judges decision to throw out the partial birth abortion ban, and push is coming to shove. A steady and quiet shift.
This is a gold plated gift from the wackadoodles,
a perfect example of how out there they really are.
*****
Gayness is taxonomically invisible.
My point in all of this that we have more important things to be discussingm and we cannot let "wackadoodles" dictate what is important.
Focusing on gay marriage when we are trying to fight a war is tantamount to arguing which toppings you want on your pizza while your house is burning down. Get out of the house first, get the fire out, then when things are bit less hectic, get personal pan pizzas for everyone.
Marriage is a contract of commitment exclusively for the purposes of procreation and family. Homos don't meet the requirements. It's that simple. Furthermore it's a destructive and sick perversion that the liberals are attempting to normalize. That's the only reason they want the civil ceremonies and official papers. It's so they can teach it to the kids as acceptable behavior. If the gays want to pretend they're married as man and wife, they can draw up pretend papers and dress up one of them in a robe to do a pretend ceremony.
" 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."
Seems you missed such things as murder, rape, robbery, child molestation, ect...
"I think you appreciate the FR joke about the pain part (have you ever been factually wrong on a post?? Owch!)."
Yeah, big time, and recently. I made a crack that attracted the attack of the southeasterners. They've had fun with me ever since.
For the record, I favor a federal law passed by Congress legalizing gay marriage. And so it goes.
I gather you are also for lifting the restriction on brothers and sisters from marrying?
After all, using your logic, state sanctioned mentally warped children resulting from incest has no impact upon you.
Children who are raised in homosexual settings are much more likely to be emerge from their experience emotionally warped.
There are scientific studies that support this position.
For that reason alone this exclusion to marriage should reside side by side to incest.
Libertarianism is impractical utopian philosophy, like marxism. Conservatism isn't a philosophy or theory, it's a practical, pragmatic, and PROVEN arrangment of society.
BINGO. And you are correct, Libertarians are not necessarily conservative.
The Founders never intended freedom to be a morally bankrupt free-for-all.
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.