The State of Our Unions (Cancel My Subscription To the Wall Street Journal)

Wall Street Journal ^ | Wednesday, October 8, 2003 | ANDREW SULLIVAN

[presidio9]

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.

[presidio9]

The philosophical point that Mr. Sullivan refuses to address is that we Conservatives do not view the institution of marriage as merely another government sponsored entitlement program. If I am heterosexual and I share a NYC apartment with another man might it not behoove me to enter into a civil union with this man? Is sodomy a prerequisite for same-sex marriage?

[Support Free Republic]

---

GOD BLESS OUR MILITARY THANK A VET! MAKE A DONATION TODAY
	Keep Our Republic Free Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER and say THANKS to Jim Robinson! IT'S IN THE BREAKING NEWS SIDEBAR Thanks

[Texas_Dawg]

Are you a subscriber currently?

[Redbob]

"A poll this week for USA Today found that 67% of the 18-29 age group believe that gay marriage would benefit society."

67% of the 18-29 age group couldn't find their home state on a highway map!
Is THAT the best argument this bozo can come up with?

[presidio9]

As you may be aware, Mr. Sullivan is Senior Editor of The New Republic. I am not sure why The Wall Street Journal thinks its subscribers would be interested in anything he has to say. I read the editorial page of the Journal specifically because I know I will avoid these lunatics.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Is sodomy a prerequisite for same-sex marriage?

Yes.

[gridlock]

Andrew Sullivan has a point, but misses the larger point.

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.

Where possible, government should be neutral on this issue of marriage. There should be no tax implications, for instance. Where neutrality is not socially beneficial, such as for the assignment of child custody, shared property, power-of-attorney, and the like, there should be a standard partnership regulation that is open to any two people who want it. This partnership would confer a series of rights and responsibilities on the people who enter into it, but it would not be a marriage.

Marriage would then be a matter for the individuals to decide. Many people would choose to get married in a church, as always. And churches would be free to restrict or permit access to their rites however they wish. The "rites" would not be a "right", since government would not be involved. Some people might choose to be "married" by their automobile mechanic on the beach, but people are going to do all sorts of wacky things, and there is no way the government is going to stop them.

It could be argued that by going to this type of arrangement, government would be abandoning any role in the promotion of marriage. But I would counter that the destructive power of government is far in excess of any capability for positive promotion. Government will not be able to avoid an ever expanding definition of marriage and will thus destroy the very institution it intends to promote.

The only way to save the institution of marriage is to separate it as much as possible from the government. This strikes me as being the proper conservative position. If this allows some homosexuals to gain the benefits of domestic partnership, I fail to see the harm in that.

[presidio9]

So, in other words, Mr. Sullivan questions the cultural morality of those who would oppose government-subsidized buttsex?

[LarryM]

Everything Sullivan writes has to be viewed through a homo filter!

[presidio9]

Very sensible! A commendible response amid the reflexive gay-bashing.

Opposition to same-sex marriage and revulsion for the homosexual sex act are not "reflexive gay-bashing."

[TopQuark]

Yes, but what does this have to do with cancelling the subscription?

[presidio9]

See post 5:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/997338/posts?page=5#5

[robertpaulsen]

"Can you think of any other legal, noncriminal minority in society toward which social conservatives have nothing but a negative social policy?"

Here we go again -- if it's legal it should be socially accepted.

Which is why people like Andrew Sullivan (a self-proclaimed conservative who acts like a cultural libertarian) want the additional legalization of other immoral activities like drugs, prostitution, gambling, pornography, etc.

Once legal, he and others can then ask the same question.

There are many legal, noncriminal minorities in society toward which social conservatives have a "negative social policy". Welfare recipients, alcoholics, smokers ... basically directed at those engaged in non-desirous, socially destructive behavoir.

Now, change that to "negative social reaction" and you can include things like single mothers, gluttons, cheating spouses, heterosexuals who go to straight bath houses to have sex with 8-10 strangers per month, etc.

You know you're having a "conservative negative social reaction" if someone calls you "judgmental" or "intolerant".

[presidio9]

a self-proclaimed conservative who acts like a cultural libertarian

They have infected FR just as surely as they have infected the Journal.

[xzins]

ping

[AAABEST]

Gay bashing is a good thing, as it discourages gayness. Homosexuality is a detrimental to our society and our species, just as a virus is to the body at large.

It's nothing more than a inherent self defense mechanizism.

[xzins]

if they are no longer criminals

Sullivan refuses to address the difference between judicial activism and the legislature debating these points in a free society.

His "non-criminal" status was forced upon everyone by judicial fiat. That is, no one believes it.

Secondly, despite the "legal" status, gays are still "moral criminals" according to the moral codes of the vast number of americans. Everyone knows there is no such thing as a monogamous gay relationship. There is only promiscuity and that from study after study.

Finally, despite the "legal" status, gays are still "medical criminals," according to the health statistics of the CDC and everyone who begins to deal with the totally destructive medical consequences of homosexual behavior.

All that said, anyone can be made clean and be healed by the Son. Love the sinner, hate the sin. This also applies to adultery, alcohol, etc.

[steve-b]

we conservatives do not view the institution of marriage as merely another government sponsored entitlement program

Fine. Separate marriage and state -- problem solved.

[robertpaulsen]

What's worse, cultural libertarianism is closer to liberalism than conservatism, which explains why most of their issues (drugs, gambling, porn, etc.) are embraced by the Left.

The major difference between the two is that cultural libertarians embrace all ideologies equally, none better, none worse. Liberals embrace only non-traditional orthodoxies. Satan worship? Cool. Baptist? Go away.

Plus, liberals are fond of using the government, or the courts, to force our acceptance of the bizarre under penalty of law.

If you have a minute, you'll like this article.