Posted on 03/29/2013 12:09:41 PM PDT by Kaslin
Same-sex marriage is probably inevitable in America whatever the Supreme Court decides. That's because the public is clearly leaning that way. That the court is even being asked to impose a sweeping social change on the nation is illustrative of another lost battle -- the idea that the Supreme Court is not a super-legislature and that nine robed lawyers ought to refrain from imposing their policy preferences on the whole nation.
Even two liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, have from time to time expressed caution about the Court imposing its will on matters better left up to the people and their elected representatives. It will be interesting to see whether those prudential considerations come into play in their decisions in these cases or whether the desire for a particular outcome overwhelms concerns about the Court's proper role. Too few Americans recognize this for what it is -- a loss of sovereignty.
Champions of same-sex marriage are carrying the day for a number of reasons. 1) The advocacy embedded in popular entertainment, such as "Modern Family" and "Brokeback Mountain" has been funny, touching and disarming. 2) Proponents of same-sex marriage appear to be asking for simple justice. 3) Americans would rather stick pins in their eyes than willingly hurt anyone's feelings. 4) Proponents seem to be embracing the conservative value of marriage.
Beyond all of those factors, though, the most potent argument in the SSM quiver is the race analogy. During oral argument at the Supreme Court, advocates argued (as they have elsewhere) that impairing the right of homosexuals to marry is analogous to proscribing interracial marriage. If that's true, it's game, set and match. If SSM is like interracial marriage, then the only possible motive for opposing it is bigotry.
Liberals slip on this argument like a comfortable sweater. It's easier to impugn the good faith of your opponents than seriously to grapple with their arguments. Oppose forcing Catholic institutions to distribute free contraceptives? You hate women. Oppose changing the definition of marriage? You hate gays.
To understand opposition to SSM, you must credit that it isn't about gays; it's about the institution of marriage, which is the foundation of our civilization. Advocates demand: "How does permitting gays and lesbians to get married hurt your marriage?"
It's the wrong question. Forty years ago, when illegitimacy was picking up steam in the U.S., conservatives expressed alarm. Liberals responded that traditional families weren't important -- that the only thing that mattered to children was love. Those who argued that the stigmas against divorce and unwed childbearing served important social functions were dismissed as Victorians or bigots. To decry the rise of illegitimacy was to be accused of insensitivity.
That experiment with alternative family structures didn't go well -- as all but the most benighted now acknowledge. The rate of illegitimate births in the U.S. is now 51 percent for women between 20 and 30. It's a slow-motion disaster for children, for parents and for the nation.
So how can those who value marriage object to offering its stability to a group that wants to marry? It's a reasonable question. What we do know is that changing the definition of marriage from a lifelong, exclusive commitment between husbands and wives to an expression of feeling between two adults has not gone well, feelings being mercurial. Enshrining SSM furthers that redefinition.
It may be that when SSM is widely available, same-sex couples will adopt exactly the same standards about commitment and parenthood that male/female couples practice (and, despite the alarming statistics, most still do). But it's also possible that gays will bring to marriage very different expectations. Andrew Sullivan, one of the fathers of the SSM movement, has noted that gay unions are more "open" and "flexible" than straight ones. If that's true, and surveys suggest that it is, will that affect the likelihood that married gay couples will stay together? We don't know. Will it adversely affect any children in the home? Again, unknown.
Nor do we know whether purposely denying to children of same-sex couples a parent of each sex is damaging. Does having two fathers erase the need for a mother or vice versa? It's too early in the history of this experiment to know.
What we do know is that traditional families featuring the lifelong, exclusive commitment of husband and wife are best for children and for society. Gays and lesbians are not responsible for the mess that our culture has made of family life. But perhaps they can understand that resisting its further redefinition is not bigotry but prudence.
We are loosing the debate over same sex marriage because their is no debate. They are telling us, not asking us, nor considering our opinion.
There is no debate.
Same-sex marriage is probably inevitable in America whatever the Supreme Court decides. That’s because the public is clearly leaning that wayO rly . . . ? How come it’s always defeated when put to public vote in that case, and those votes are subsequently overturned by prejudiced activist judges?
Because we have become a “Post-Christian” nation.
There is no debate because Republicans do not know how to take control of a debate. They are never on the offense; only on the defense and the left has learned how to take advantage of that fact.
“Champions of same-sex marriage are carrying the day for a number of reasons. 1) The advocacy embedded in popular entertainment, such as “Modern Family” and “Brokeback Mountain” has been funny, touching and disarming. 2) Proponents of same-sex marriage appear to be asking for simple justice. 3) Americans would rather stick pins in their eyes than willingly hurt anyone’s feelings. 4) Proponents seem to be embracing the conservative value of marriage. “
Their side used Constitutional freedoms to change people’s minds, and the courts to make sure they stayed that way.
Ours sat around quoting Bible verses thinking that would do something.
The usual laziness of conservatives meant there would be no rallies. They have to work and take kids to soccer practice. Who has time to engage the issue when it counted? I’m too busy!!!
I mean, Rush hammered the issue. isn’t that enough? /s
It is as simple as that
the only thing that’s changed recently in regards to this issue and polling is... blacks who were the biggest opponents of gay marriage are starting to back it because of the black homo in the white house.
With Republicans jumping on the Gay Marriage Bandwagon, it may be time to dump the GOP and create the American Family Party.
on abortion the right has always been on the offensive and we are winning.
Or the Founder’s Party.
> There is no debate.
There is no debate, because debate is not allowed.
Because he supports REAL marriage, the invitation to Dr. Ben Carson to be commencement speaker at Johns Hopkins was rescinded by the student body, and he has offered to step down.
He apologized.
Big mistake. You must NEVER apologize to the Left.
And frankly a lot of straight people have made a mockery of marriage, without any help from the gays.
Yeah, Breyer and Ginsburg say things like that and it makes them seem reasonable, but have they ever actually practiced it? More specifically, have they ever refrained from voting to impose their leftwing policy preferences when given a chance?
It seems the only time they favor leaving matters to the rubes and their elected leaders is when it comes to protecting gun bans and racial preferences.
This idea that they will refrain from trying to impose gay marriage is wishful thinking at best, and is probably closer to delusion.
” There is no debate because Republicans do not know how to take control of a debate. They are never on the offense; only on the defense and the left has learned how to take advantage of that fact.”
No, they are COWARDS, like Boehner, who only care about themselves.
Before one removes a fence, it is prudent to ask why it’s there.
Indeed, even to compare same-sex marriage with letting black marry white women is false. Miscegenation laws were passed precisely because if a black man has sex with a woman, they are very likely to have children. Since there is no natural impediment, racists created artificial ones. But of course, they have taken child-bearing out of the loop. Yet the state got involved in marriage because a man and a woman have the potential —though not the duty—to have children. The state does not care if the couple are “in love” or not. That is a private matter.
You are right and the reason is we have no way to get our message out except talk radio.
The radical left almost totally controls the media.
If the battle is being lost, and that is by no means certain, it is primarily because the Republican Party no longer represents what is right, and has become little more than a false flag operation...designed only to get you in close where they can fire their guns and blow you away.
You assume that the Republican Establishment t were ever on the right side, except for expedience sake. Jerry Ford and wife were big pro-choice people, and if they were alive would be in favor of giving homosexuals the right to call their legal unions “marriage.”
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.