Gay Marriage and Agnostic Conservatives
Over at Real Clear Politics, Ryan Sager comments on this piece by Heather McDonald, in which Ms. McDonald notes that many conservative skeptics and agnostics oppose gay marriage.
To that, Sager observes: "I'm not sure where opposition to gay marriage fits in as an intrinsic part of non-religion-based conservatism."
Here's how -- at least in my view. What the government is supposed to be doing is securing the life, liberty and property of its people. That includes ensuring the safety and well-being of children (and if you don't agree with that, take it up with the welfare/divorce establishment, which is based on that understanding).
On the whole (though, as with everything else, not always), the best conditions for ensuyring the "rights"/well-being of children is when they are cared for by their married mother and father. The government therefore has an interest in promoting that arrangement, or at least a basis for preferring it. And that's the reason that government policy should limit marriage to a man and a woman.
Certainly, there are compelling arguments for removing unfair legal disabilities that attend gay relationships (hospital visitation rules and the like). But if you'll notice, most gays believe that for there to be true "equality," they are entitled to the word "marriage" as well as to its legal incidents. And that's where they lose many conservatives -- believers and non-believers alike.
To that, Sager observes: "I'm not sure where opposition to gay marriage fits in as an intrinsic part of non-religion-based conservatism."
Here's how -- at least in my view. What the government is supposed to be doing is securing the life, liberty and property of its people. That includes ensuring the safety and well-being of children (and if you don't agree with that, take it up with the welfare/divorce establishment, which is based on that understanding).
On the whole (though, as with everything else, not always), the best conditions for ensuyring the "rights"/well-being of children is when they are cared for by their married mother and father. The government therefore has an interest in promoting that arrangement, or at least a basis for preferring it. And that's the reason that government policy should limit marriage to a man and a woman.
Certainly, there are compelling arguments for removing unfair legal disabilities that attend gay relationships (hospital visitation rules and the like). But if you'll notice, most gays believe that for there to be true "equality," they are entitled to the word "marriage" as well as to its legal incidents. And that's where they lose many conservatives -- believers and non-believers alike.
posted by LadybugUSA at 1:19 PM
8 Comments:
I am amazed that in all the simple eloquence of Ms. MacDonald's work all you could pick out to write about was the gay marriage point. Well that about says it all for the fringe upon which you reside. there is no silent, or for that matter vocal majority here Carol. America the last time I was there was a publicly pious but privately secular electorate and voting is still private.
MacDonald gave you good grist with which to see that those who disagree with the theocratic pandering (Tom DeLay and passing through the eye of a needle comes to mind) but still share your values can be good conservatives. Alas like everything else that runs through the right wing wringer it's your way or the highway.
How about a little more rationalism, humility and god commonsense and less propagandizing and your party might have a chance in the fall.
Does it matter what party is in power if you get good government?
C.E.
Hey cav,
Get a blog and pick your topics. In the meantime, just debate what the host/hostess picks where you visit.
Considering the well-over-60% that have voted against gay marriage in every state where the issue appeared on a referendum, I'd hardly call it "fringe". While many base their opinions on their faith, one needn't use it to argue in favor of the status quo. None of those in favor of pro-marriage or the sham replacement known as civil unions ever draw the line when asked about which relationships shouldn't be allowed. Care to give it a go? Let's remove the obvious from consideration, that being adult/child, though Judith Levine might disagree.
It's rational commonsense that results in the vote to protect marriage as it stands. "Rational" and "commonsense" are not words that best describe the left these days. So yes, the party matters particularly when getting good government from the Democratic Party is not likely.
Marshall,
You and Carol and anyone else is welcome to comment on my blog anytime and as often as you like. This is one thing I do like about Ms. Liebau she does allow free discourse.
And oh yes, the gay marriage thing I think it would be a sin not to accord people who love each other a chance to express it by saying they will love only one other. And with that committment the equal status as being a married couple. That sort of love might be in that book you chaps pick through from time to time for talking points.
C.E.
It's tiring to constantly have to qualify my position as being one that is in agreement with my religious beliefs, yet not dependent upon them. Yet from that perspective, it is also a little insulting to hear how we must remove any mention of our religion from the public square in order to prevent offense to those who aren't of the Judeo-Christian tradition, a small segment of American society, while at the same time, the views and beliefs of less than ten percent of the country must be held up against the wishes of that majority. Let the states decide at the very least.
Also a problem is how little there is to support the position of gay marriage. It seems to hinge on, "I want it, so I should have it" and that's never been the compelling argument for any change half as momentus as this. I don't see where how someone gets his nuts off is a profound reason to upset generations of tradition and culture. It's based on something totally selfish and lacking any true benefit to society. It's a proven correctable condition for anyone who has the desire and willingness to think beyond one's own base urges. It's a part of the overall abdication of discipline so prevalent and pervasive in society and/or the overindulgence in one's desires, damn the consequences.
And the gauntlet of challenge still lies: where do you draw the line in what constitutes marriage? Are there any relationships the state shouldn't license? If we allow this, what won't we allow?
"I want it so I should have it" worked for segreation for years. I still fail to understand how gay marriage undermines all other marriage? Would this make the fact that more than half of straight marriages end in divorce/ That religion in America has not been able to stem the tide of divorce even among evangelicals who can break up with a stunningly exponential fecundity.
Is this just some human "ick factor" or is it just one group trying to control the bahvior of others? How is their action, their desire to be in committed relations a harm to the body politic vice an affront to the moral sensibilities of the majority? is there no room for minoroty rights in America that truly do no harm to society as a whole or its citizens?
C.E.
hospital visitation rules and the like)
Wouldn't it be far easier to lobby the hospital for a rule change? For that matter, shouldn't a patient have a say in who gets to see him or her?
CE said: ""I want it so I should have it" worked for segreation (sic) for years.",
and we got rid of segregation, no?
So let's get rid of gay marriage...
and CE said:
"is it just one group trying to control the bahvior (sic) of others?"
Not at all, do you think not letting gays marry has stopped them from being gay?
Look at the countries that have allowed gay marriage, once they have it, they rarely bother. They REALLY DID just want to tear down the idea of traditional marriage. The majority of gays have multiple partners anyway, so it's also just a step to letting multiple "unions" occur. -- yes, I know several gay people, and none of them are monogamous. They're just as bad off as the non-monogamous heterosexuals.
This is not an issue of forcing religious beliefs on those who don't want them. It is, however, a matter of forcing the beliefs of a small minority upon the vast majority. On another thread, copioneer offers a piece by Thomas Sowell that answers many of the questions posed here. I reccommend it highly.
editor's comparison of our religious beliefs to the Taliban is a cheap shot with little resemblance to reality. How typical.
Post a Comment
<< Home