Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The State of Our Unions (Cancel My Subscription To the Wall Street Journal)
Wall Street Journal ^ | Wednesday, October 8, 2003 | ANDREW SULLIVAN

Posted on 10/08/2003 6:26:08 AM PDT by presidio9

Edited on 04/22/2004 11:50:04 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

It didn't take long for many social conservatives to ponder the long-term implications of the Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down all antisodomy laws in the U.S. Moves are afoot to advance a constitutional amendment that would bar any state's legalization of same-sex marriage; next week is "Marriage Protection Week," in which the alleged danger of Lawrence v. Texas will be highlighted across the country. This push toward blanket prohibition, however, sidesteps a basic point about the post-Lawrence world. Whatever you feel about the reasoning of the decision, its result is clear: Gay Americans are no longer criminals. And very few conservatives want to keep them that way. The term "gay citizen" is now simply a fact of life.


(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: andrewsullivan; culturallibertarian; gaypromiscuity; homosexualagenda; immaturelibertarians; lawrencevtexas; libertarianutopia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last
To: gridlock
The government has no business promoting marriage for some and restricting it for others. Marriage between individuals is simply none of the government's business.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks.

21 posted on 10/08/2003 8:33:28 AM PDT by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Wonderful article. The fact that you have not yet quipped me on your homepage makes me think I haven't been doing my part to combat cultural libertarianism.
22 posted on 10/08/2003 8:34:54 AM PDT by presidio9 (Countdown to 27 World Championships...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Elisha_Ben_Abuya; gridlock
Do you then oppose getting licenses to marry?

Marriage is a part of our social construct. It has been for centuries. What Sullivan suggests is that we change that construct to include a behavior that is abberant and destructive to the human race. Are you for that?

23 posted on 10/08/2003 8:36:42 AM PDT by raybbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
Gay bashing is a good thing, as it discourages gayness.

We don't agree, but that's OK. You can go bash gays all you want. It's a free country.

Just don't use the power of the state to do it.

24 posted on 10/08/2003 8:39:43 AM PDT by gridlock (Remember: PC Kills!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
We don't agree, but that's OK. You can go bash gays all you want. It's a free country.

Just don't use the power of the state to do it.

Protecting the sanctity of marriage is not "gay bashing."

25 posted on 10/08/2003 8:42:09 AM PDT by presidio9 (Countdown to 27 World Championships...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
Do you then oppose getting licenses to marry?

If people want to accept the legal rights and responsibilities that go along with committing themselves to another person, I think it should be a simple thing to get a "standard package" domestic partnership.

But that should have nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is a social and religious institution, and should have nothing to do with the government. The words "And now, by the power granted to me by (Blankety-blank) State, I now pronounce you...) should never escape a religious officiant's lips.

If two people want to marry without a domestic partnership, they should be allowed to do so, but I don't think you will find a lot of established churches willing to bless such a union.

If two people want a domestic partnership without marriage, that should be none of the state's business.

26 posted on 10/08/2003 8:47:29 AM PDT by gridlock (Remember: PC Kills!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
Actually I don't bash gays at all, I'm a live and let live type unless provoked. I've known some very nice gay people. I do bash and will continue the bash their ill-intended political operatives and their filthy perverted agenda.

I just see what's happening for what it is. The society is trying to keep the gay "virus" from it's destructive ends.
27 posted on 10/08/2003 8:48:07 AM PDT by AAABEST (http://www.floridasoundoff.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Protecting the sanctity of marriage is not "gay bashing."

I could not agree with you more. But the sanctity of marriage should be protected by social institutions that are at least geared toward protecting sancitity, like churches.

The government does a terrible job of protecting the sanctity of anything. In fact, government involvement will pretty much guarantee the de-sanctification of just about anything.

28 posted on 10/08/2003 8:50:46 AM PDT by gridlock (Remember: PC Kills!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Elisha_Ben_Abuya
"Very sensible! A commendible response amid the reflexive gay-bashing."

Just the facts:
* Gays are ~ 2.6% of the population;
* The average lifespan of gays is ~ 40 years;
* Practicing Sodomy creates all sorts of medical problems;

So if one highlights these points and disagrees with queer-marriage, I guess it's called gay bashing!
29 posted on 10/08/2003 8:56:20 AM PDT by TRY ONE (NUKE the unborn gay whales!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
The society is trying to keep the gay "virus" from it's destructive ends.

For somebody who doesn't bash gays, you seem to have a colorful choice of terms...

There are a whole lot of things society might like to do that are destructive of personal freedom and the notion that all men are created equal. Racial segregation was wildly popular in the South in 1950, but that didn't make it right.

The mechanism of having the state in the middle saying that certain people can be married and certain others can't is just corrosive. It does nothing for the sanctity of marriage and gives the people who want an expansive definition of marriage a mechanism to achieve their ends.

If you know you are destined to lose on a certain playing field, why play there? Why not get government out of the marriage business?

30 posted on 10/08/2003 8:56:58 AM PDT by gridlock (Remember: PC Kills!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
"This strikes me as being the proper conservative position."

Getting the government out of marriage strikes me as the proper libertarian position.

Over the millennia, promoting, encouraging, and rewarding the traditional marriage of one man and one woman have proven to be the best way to maintain the society. All of a sudden this is no good?

"If this allows some homosexuals to gain the benefits of domestic partnership, I fail to see the harm in that."

What you fail to see is that recognizing "domestic partners" or even "homosexual marriage" is not the goal. The goal is to add legitimacy to that lifestyle choice. It's saying that we, as a society, make no distinction between the two. And that's not correct.

31 posted on 10/08/2003 9:01:47 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
And his argument that this country is evenly split has been refuted many times over.

In addition, you can't take the poll that supports the Ten Commandments in public buildings by 70% and try to tease out support for homo marriage at the same time.

It doesn't wash.
32 posted on 10/08/2003 9:04:04 AM PDT by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redbob
Notice he chooses the age group least likely to pay for their own health insurance, taxes, mortgage, and have children?

Neat little trick.
33 posted on 10/08/2003 9:05:04 AM PDT by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
the Journal's editorial page is perhaps the greates in the world ......

Shaped and molded and honed as such in my lifetime by Bob Bartley and now has Paul Gigot at the tiller

AL Hunt has a opinion weekly piece which is regularly far wackyer and more infurioating than anything written here by Andrew Sullivan ...... who unlike Hunt is a bright man

The Journal has oaways offered a forum to positions oposite to that of its editorials

That's what this OPINION piece is by Sullivan

This is not the opinion of the WSJ. -- it's an OP-ED

the Journal was fair and balanced long before it became fashonable

To Paraphrase Bob Bartley: ' It's the only Editorial page in the world which actually sells papers'

He's quite correct

Just read those two pages each day and you will be a better person .... IMHO

.

34 posted on 10/08/2003 9:07:39 AM PDT by Elle Bee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Over the millennia, promoting, encouraging, and rewarding the traditional marriage of one man and one woman have proven to be the best way to maintain the society. All of a sudden this is no good?

I think promoting traditional marriage is great! We should all do it!

My point is that government involvement will, in the end, be destructive to traditional marriage. Our government is incapable of protecting an institution like marriage by saying it should be open to some and not to others. It will default to the inclusive position, time and time again.

So if one supports an inclusive definition of marriage, getting the government as intertwined as possible is the one sure way guarantee that the definition is expanded. Once the government hangs a whole lot of legal rights, responsibilities and goodies onto marriage, there is no way to restrict it to certain people.

The FMA will never happen. It is a losing rear-guard action based on the notion that government activism can have any result other than the opposite of what is intended.

Since government will inevitably destroy the institution of marriage, I propose keeping government and marriage as far as possible away from one another.

35 posted on 10/08/2003 9:23:13 AM PDT by gridlock (Remember: PC Kills!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
I wasn't arguing about the rightness of the government involving itself in marraige, I would agree that it needs to be completely out of the marriage business.

You're missing my point, which is a simple point of fact. Homosexuality is bad for the species and society, always has been. We know this inherently and it's been proven over and over throughout history.

While PC and modern thought (which tells us we're smarter than our ancestors and history) takes pause at "gay bashing", I'm simply pointing out that it's a collective self defense mechanism against an unnatural and destructive element. Like white blood cells try to eliminate a virus for lack of a better term.

The more bashing the better. That sounds cold to you because you're immersed in PC-think more that you realize.

Did you know that in many cultures there is no such thing as gay?
36 posted on 10/08/2003 9:31:41 AM PDT by AAABEST (http://www.floridasoundoff.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Elle Bee
Just read those two pages each day and you will be a better person

Agreed, and I realize that from time to time the Journal has been known to run op-ed pieces from the likes of Al Gore and Martha Stewart. And I'm sure that most intelligent readers understand that Hunt lost his sanity and any pretext of camoflaging his liberalism the day his son was paralyzed. But Sullivan is something different. He masquarades as a Conservative, and I find that dishonest. At the very least, if the WSJ is going run an op-ed piece by Sullivan defending gay marriage from a so-called "Conservative" standpoint, the author needs to acknowledge his own homosexuality within the article.

37 posted on 10/08/2003 9:42:15 AM PDT by presidio9 (Countdown to 27 World Championships...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
I don't see where we have such a problem. Society properly seeks to promote some behavior and discourage other behavior.

However, I don't think I would use the virus terminology. That's kind of loaded, don't you think?

I would also take issue with the notion that gay bashing discourages gayness. If one accepts the notion that homosexuality is a choice rather than a condition, is it not inevitable that a certain proportion of the society (say, oh, 2.6%) will make the counter-cultural choice just out of sheer bloody-mindedness?

I guess it would be possible to reduce that percentage through massive repression and Taliban-like levels of legal and physical intimidation, but that hardly seems worth it.
38 posted on 10/08/2003 9:42:25 AM PDT by gridlock (Remember: PC Kills!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
Bump your worthy #7.
39 posted on 10/08/2003 9:47:22 AM PDT by headsonpikes (Spirit of '76 bttt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Sullavan is Gay

he is also consevative

It's rare but quite possible

Sullivan is usually quite honest in his opinions .... as is conservativism

.

40 posted on 10/08/2003 9:51:57 AM PDT by Elle Bee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson