Carol Platt Liebau: On Gay Marriage

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

On Gay Marriage

Dennis Prager expresses perfectly many conservatives' views on the gay marriage amendment:

[T]hough it is painful for us to see a perfectly decent homosexual unable to marry a person of the same sex, we are nevertheless more preoccupied with:

(1) Giving every child the opportunity to at least begin life with a mother and father; (2) Honoring the will of the great majority of Americans, secular and religious, liberal and conservative, to preserve the man-woman marital ideal, and not allow a judge to single-handedly destroy that ideal; (3) Preserving the ability of teachers and clergy to tell the story of marriage to young children in terms of a man and woman and not confuse the vast majority of kids who are forming their vision of marriage and sexuality.

These preoccupations are neither bigoted nor radical. They are, in our view, civilization-saving.

18 Comments:

Blogger RovingWireTap said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:27 AM  
Blogger wile e coyote said...

The proposed amendment overreaches by interfering in an area traditionally reserved to the states.

It is one thing to amend the federal constitution to provide that marriage, for federal purposes, need not be defined more broadly than the union between an man and a woman. But, there is no reason why the amendment should require that state constitutions be so construed.

As a conservative, I would vote against this amendment. And shame on the religious right for sacrificing federalist principles both here and in cases like Terry Schiavo.

11:51 AM  
Blogger Dr Faust said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

12:06 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

I agree with RZAFFT.

But I'm also snickering a little that ROVING is so upset that the Republican base might get energized. :o)

1:00 PM  
Blogger RovingWireTap said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:20 PM  
Blogger RovingWireTap said...

I meant projecting

1:32 PM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

Of course, there were plenty of concerned, thoughtful conservatives who also found it personally painful to see perfectly decent blacks and whites marry each other, but understood the deeper morality behind the bans on miscegenation. And they could spout the same wise, weary rhetoric about how they didn't have a prejudiced bone in their body, they were just defending the way things needed to be to maintain the country's moral standards.

And they all claimed not to be bigots, either.

1:40 PM  
Blogger Dr Faust said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:44 PM  
Blogger wile e coyote said...

Dr Faust,

Are you getting personal because you've run out of arguments?

wrabkin,

Up until now, at any rate, race discrimination has been treated differently for federal equal protection purposes than sex discrimination or gender-preference discriminiation.

We previously established that anyone who disagrees with you is not necessarily a moron/sucker. Am I now to understand that anyone who disagrees with you on the issue of the definition of marriage is a rascist/bigot?

3:31 PM  
Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

Look, I have to admit something. I've been posting occasionally here for a while and I think I need to "come out of the closet".

That's right - I'm an evangelical Christian.

But at the same time as being an evangelical, I'm also a political liberal.

Yet despite being a political liberal, I also believe in the Bible. Look up "Sola Sciptura" and the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" on Wikipedia and you will see what I believe.

This means, of course, that I believe that homosexuality is actually wrong.

Yet, for some reason, I just can't get excited about this marriage amendment thingy that my fellow evangelicals are all happy about.

I don't see how allowing Gay marriage will "destroy" or "threaten" traditional marriage.

As far as I'm concerned, homosexuality results from human sin - a condition that everyone has. Since the majority of Americans are "unbelievers" (from an evangelical pov) why should I expect or even demand that unbelievers follow biblical priciples?

And even if society does allow gay marriage, what danger will it present to evangelicals like me who wish to honour God and obey the Bible?

I mean, the greatest sin of all is to reject Jesus as your saviour and Lord. But I don't see evangelicals lobbying politicians to enforce that rule, or even make it part of the constitution. Is that because being worried about "the gay" is mroe important than the gospel?

5:25 PM  
Blogger amber said...

I agree with you. I too am a Christian, but a very conservative one. I argue with my Christian friends and family about this issue. If they are trying to keep homosexuals from marying because of their faith, that is wrong. As a Christian I think the most important thing is that people come to Christ, once they do, then I can let them know about Biblical principals, but if they do not have a heart for Christianity, then forcing them is not going to make more Christians. It is better that people come to know God on their own than for 'Godly' people to force them to follow rules they do not believe. My family always comes back with, "if you allow this to happen then they can adopt children" to which I reply that they already can and do adopt. If I set aside my Christian beliefs and only focus on my Conservative American ones, then I say, have them pay marriage taxes just like everyone else. There is an issue with companies being forced to insure the homosexual married partner, but many companies do that already. I don't know, it is not an easy issue.

(Durring this post when I say Christian, I mean those who have accepted Christ as their savior and are working on following Him and loving Him and believing what the Bible says is true, that is the Christian I am refering to. Many "Christians" say they believe and then pick and choose truths from the Bible, I do not consider them Christian, I do not know what I consider them, but I do not mean to offend them if I did.)

6:21 PM  
Blogger Dr Faust said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:35 PM  
Blogger Dr Faust said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7:21 PM  
Blogger wile e coyote said...

Dr faust,

Carol is not arguing for the criminalization of homosexual behavior (which is now constitutionally protected thanks to the Supreme Court).

She is arguing that the term "marriage" and its legal benefits should not be extended by judicial fiat beyond those who have had exclusive right to it for thousands of years.

The Inquisition tortured and killed people because of what they believed. The Taliban killed (torture optional) because of what they believed and because they failed to conform their conduct to what the Taliban wanted.

The Inquisition and Taliban also demonized their opponents, which is something you seem to have in common with them and not Carol.

Get the log out of your eye.

8:17 PM  
Blogger Dr Faust said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11:33 PM  
Blogger Jessica said...

You all should be reading the excellent articles about this issue on National Review Online, which discusses the state of gay marriages in Scandinavian countries where they have been legalized. There is actually a lot of evidence out there that the legalization of gay marriage does weaken the idea of marriage altogether and that is what many liberals fighting for gay marriage are actually hoping for.

I was a single mom for several years. I know that children can thrive in non-traditional arrangements. However, I also know that my son and I have been doing a lot better since I remarried. Kids deserve to have what is BEST, not just what is okay. What is best for kids is to have a mother and a father and our laws should reflect our society's commitment to providing that to children in as many cases as possible.

12:06 AM  
Blogger COPioneer said...

Thanks Jessica, that is the salient point. To look at the countries that have allowed it and see that the whole goal was to destroy the idea of marriage. In fact, the statistics show that not many gays actually do participate in the legalized marriage once they are able to. Because the other fact is, they change partners often. Which is why they can't donate blood...but I digress...

7:47 AM  
Blogger RovingWireTap said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:24 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google