"Gay marriage"
Carol Mac commented:
1. "Marriage by definition is between a man and woman. Those who argue otherwise have thousands of years of human history and cultures against them."
Yes, I would have preferred that gays had never opened this can of worms but monarchy, slavery and polygamy also had "thousands of years of human history and cultures" and were accepted in the Bible. The American Revolution got rid of monarchy and opened the door (can of worms?) to individual sovereignty and freedom so I do understand how some Americans would want to push for as much personal freedom as they can. Polygamy still exists in non-Christian cultures and the only argument social conservatives have for traditional marriage is the bible which means nothing to most liberals. Even traditional Western civilization means nothing to them either.
2. "As conservatives, we believe in personal freedoms and believe that consenting adults should be able to form the partnerships they want to."
Exactly.
3. "Should the state perhaps just regulate contracts between people and leave the religious aspect to the religious community?"
Civil contracts would be the ideal solution but, unfortunately the word "marriage" is now up for grabs and we can probably not get gays to back down now and accept the terms "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" or any other new-fangled term. I know some evangelicals are now using the term "covenant marriages" to distinguish from civil marriages.
4. "How is it ‘fair’ to allow gay marriage which by the current views as a civil rights issue would force clergy to perform gay marriages or face discrimination suits?"
Most of the new gay marriage laws enacted by states have "religious discrimination" clauses protecting churches from discrimination suits. These are essential. Catholics regard marriage as one of the seven sacraments (which is why they don't allow divorce.) Of course some liberal churches will perform gay marriages but there must be clear-cut laws protecting churches from law suits.
5. "What is best for children? Whatever it is, does it matter any more?"
It seems obvious that a dad and a mom are the best for kids but many of my peers had staunch Catholic moms and dads who were alcoholics or abused them. I've known a few lesbian couples with kids from previous marriages who were good parents and my current doctor (a man) and his male partner have four adopted kids. Of course they live in a small town and aren't part of the "gay scene." Most of the gays who adopt kids are not promiscuous party animals. I'm sure there are horror stories but a roof over one's head is better than nothing. I would like to foster or adopt kids now that I have enough money but I'm too old. The dangers are obvious for children but, by the time that happens (and it probably will) our society will be totally socialized and the government will have a lot more control over children.
6. "If the definition of marriage is changed on the basis of ‘fairness’ (or any basis I suppose), the fact is, it DOES provide any other kind of arrangement leverage to argue for official acknowledgement. As a society, how do we manage that going forward?"
Do you mean polygamy, polyandry and other forms of "group marriages?" It sure is a can of worms. I still see big government and socialism as the main enemy. Holding back the stampede towards coercive Big Brother statism is the most important thing. That's why I say that we need to emphasize small government "libertarianism." Social arrangements are going to change whether we like or not. The Brave New World is coming. The real danger is state totalitarianism.
Patrick, you write:Carol, "gay marriage" is not a personal issue for me so I don't have a dog in the fight but I'll respond. However I do not want to be telling social conservatives what I think they ought to do. These are just a few random thoughts."In the same way social conservatives can object to gay marriage and homosexuality but keep in mind that it is a free country and people are allowed to be wrong and sinful and well as righteous and virtuous. Civilized people do not impose or coerce; they accommodate differences."I couldn’t agree more!
Can we take this issue as an example and discuss? I think it represents the struggle a lot of conservatives have between our ‘liberal’ views and our fear of the unwanted practical outcome.
For the sake of brevity I’ll bullet point my thoughts:
(My best friend of 28 years is gay – just to establish that my heart is very open minded.
1. Marriage by definition is between a man and woman. Those who argue otherwise have thousands of years of human history and cultures against them.
but…
2. As conservatives, we believe in personal freedoms and believe that consenting adults should be able to form the partnerships they want to.
3. Should the state perhaps just regulate contracts between people and leave the religious aspect to the religious community?
4. How is it ‘fair’ to allow gay marriage which by the current views as a civil rights issue would force clergy to perform gay marriages or face discrimination suites?
5. What is best for children? Whatever it is, does it matter any more?
6. If the definition of marriage is changed on the basis of ‘fairness’ (or any basis I suppose), the fact is, it DOES provide any other kind of arrangement leverage to argue for official acknowledgement. As a society, how do we manage that going forward?
I think this is a watershed issue for Republicans/conservatives, whoever you are to the right of left. To me it seems that it pits our religious values against our small government/conservative/personal freedom values like no other issue. Or at least highlights the conundrum like no other issue.
Anyway, I just feel that if we don’t take this opportunity to have better dialogue and more serious thinking on the issue, we won’t have a seat at the social issues table in the future.
Do you feel like weighing in?
1. "Marriage by definition is between a man and woman. Those who argue otherwise have thousands of years of human history and cultures against them."
Yes, I would have preferred that gays had never opened this can of worms but monarchy, slavery and polygamy also had "thousands of years of human history and cultures" and were accepted in the Bible. The American Revolution got rid of monarchy and opened the door (can of worms?) to individual sovereignty and freedom so I do understand how some Americans would want to push for as much personal freedom as they can. Polygamy still exists in non-Christian cultures and the only argument social conservatives have for traditional marriage is the bible which means nothing to most liberals. Even traditional Western civilization means nothing to them either.
2. "As conservatives, we believe in personal freedoms and believe that consenting adults should be able to form the partnerships they want to."
Exactly.
3. "Should the state perhaps just regulate contracts between people and leave the religious aspect to the religious community?"
Civil contracts would be the ideal solution but, unfortunately the word "marriage" is now up for grabs and we can probably not get gays to back down now and accept the terms "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" or any other new-fangled term. I know some evangelicals are now using the term "covenant marriages" to distinguish from civil marriages.
4. "How is it ‘fair’ to allow gay marriage which by the current views as a civil rights issue would force clergy to perform gay marriages or face discrimination suits?"
Most of the new gay marriage laws enacted by states have "religious discrimination" clauses protecting churches from discrimination suits. These are essential. Catholics regard marriage as one of the seven sacraments (which is why they don't allow divorce.) Of course some liberal churches will perform gay marriages but there must be clear-cut laws protecting churches from law suits.
5. "What is best for children? Whatever it is, does it matter any more?"
It seems obvious that a dad and a mom are the best for kids but many of my peers had staunch Catholic moms and dads who were alcoholics or abused them. I've known a few lesbian couples with kids from previous marriages who were good parents and my current doctor (a man) and his male partner have four adopted kids. Of course they live in a small town and aren't part of the "gay scene." Most of the gays who adopt kids are not promiscuous party animals. I'm sure there are horror stories but a roof over one's head is better than nothing. I would like to foster or adopt kids now that I have enough money but I'm too old. The dangers are obvious for children but, by the time that happens (and it probably will) our society will be totally socialized and the government will have a lot more control over children.
6. "If the definition of marriage is changed on the basis of ‘fairness’ (or any basis I suppose), the fact is, it DOES provide any other kind of arrangement leverage to argue for official acknowledgement. As a society, how do we manage that going forward?"
Do you mean polygamy, polyandry and other forms of "group marriages?" It sure is a can of worms. I still see big government and socialism as the main enemy. Holding back the stampede towards coercive Big Brother statism is the most important thing. That's why I say that we need to emphasize small government "libertarianism." Social arrangements are going to change whether we like or not. The Brave New World is coming. The real danger is state totalitarianism.
posted by Joubert at 11:44 AM
The Alliance
<< Home