The problem with gay marriage

Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by Tuck31, Jun 17, 2010.

  1. Tuck31

    Tuck31 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,086
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Location:
    California, unfortunately
    And the perfect solution.

    TYRRELL: A marriage proposal
    States should leave matrimony to churches

    By R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.
    5:47 p.m., Wednesday, June 16, 2010

    The campaign to overturn California's Proposition 8 in the courts is a perfect example of one of my most deeply held findings. Check that. Two of my most deeply held findings.

    The first is that liberals always go too far. They often start out with a good value and drive it right off the cliff. For instance, they start with peace or justice or tolerance, and they go off the rails, usually getting the opposite. The second finding is that conservatives embrace greater diversity than liberals. They are not ideologues but rather creatures of a philosophy that allows them more latitude than liberals, who really are ideologues.

    Let us dilate on the last matter first, as it shines a light on conservatism that is rarely noted. Two major legal minds of the conservative movement are on either side of the case over Proposition 8. One is Charles J. Cooper. He is a star in the conservative legal firmament, and he considers marriage to be a matter between a man and a woman. The other is Ted Olson. He considers it to be a matter of man and woman, woman and woman, and man and man. As he told The Washington Post the other day, discrimination on the basis of sex "is wrong and it's hurtful, and I have never understood it."

    Both are friends of mine, and I respect both men's views, though I side with Mr. Cooper. Moreover, I wonder about the liberals who hold these values today. Where were they in, say, 1960 or 1950, or any time back when homosexual rights were unthinkable? But here we are in 2010, and the whole liberal movement is with Ted. OK, I am with them, to a point.

    When I got to think about it, I thought it was wrong to deny a stable couple, whether woman and woman or man and man, certain rights. For instance, the right to visit a partner in a hospital.I am told that right is often denied homosexuals. Or the right to enter into a health policy, the right to insurance or to inheritance.There are all sorts of rights and obligations that a couple wants to share and cannot. But with the simple expedient of a civil contract, they can have them, so why bar people from this? They can live together. Why not help them live stably?

    But this is not what the organized gays want. They want to claim that a union that cannot possibly produce babies can. They even could raise babies they have adopted, but they want to claim the usufructs for marriage. It is on the face of it a nonsense, but it is a nonsense that is claimed by homosexuals. Why?

    Is it just another example of the left going too far? Is it an example of the extremism of the left that we have seen so many times before, of the left taking a perfectly good institution and destroying it? Or is there a method to this madness?

    Some believe that those wanting marriage extended to homosexuals want it because it is the first step in the effort to deny tax-exempt status to churches and synagogues. First, marriage is extended to homosexuals. Then religious organizations deny homosexuals the right to marry. Then those organizations have their tax-exempt status denied them for denying a right to homosexuals, namely the right to marry.

    Thus, while the organized homosexuals are proceeding to demand the "right" to marry pursuant to a larger issue, perhaps we should short-circuit this tricky business. We should privatize marriage. The state merely enforces contracts between two people, a man and a woman, a woman and woman, a man and a man. Meanwhile, the churches and synagogues extend the sacrament for those who want it. Get the state out of the love and sacrament business. Everyone is happy, no?

    That, come to think of it, introduces another of my deeply held findings. Conservatives have more peaceful solutions for social problems, some of which the liberals just make up.

    R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is the founder and editor-in-chief of the American Spectator and an adjunct scholar at the Hudson Institute. His new book is "After the Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery" (Thomas Nelson, 2010).
     
  2. The Hilljack

    The Hilljack Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    13,011
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Location:
    Ducktard Free, VA
    I support gay marriage as long as both chicks are hot. :dv
     
  3. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    Interesting article.

    I would first disagree with the general assessment of conservatives. I think that without question as long as rights are attached to marriage in this country then it's discriminatory to not allow any two consenting adults to enter such an arrangement. I have yet to see anyone who feels differently explain how any argument they use could not be used to deny interracial marriage.

    However, we've had that debate before and I don't need to start it again here.

    On the article in question.....the position that conservatives embrace diversity more than liberals is hard to defend when the vast majority of conservatives oppose the legality of homosexual marriage (note 'legality', I oppose it morally. Big difference) based on religious views and tradition. At the end of the day those arguments are irrelevant. What marriage has been is not an adequate defense-----at one point women hadn't 'traditionally' voted. One's religious opposition doesn't matter either. I oppose it on those grounds as well, but that's no basis for law.

    What certain groups intend by their position on this isn't relevant either. Say the NRA and the ACLU agree on an issue but with different goals in mind. Does that make their position on the particular issue wrong? I know very well that certain gay rights groups are NOT after equal rights but want special rights and special recognition. On that they're wrong as can be but I'm not going to be wrong on gay marriage due to that.

    If it's recognized equally by the state and then someone goes after churches for who they will and won't marry, I'll oppose it all I can. But you don't oppose gun rights because a dangerous criminal might more easily get a gun because of such. Right is right.

    As for 'get the state out', I've been saying that for some time. That's where those who say two men being married somehow impacts their marriage fall way short. I made a vow to God and to my wife in my church and to me it's a religious covenant and event. I made NO vow to any state entity with my marriage and nobody else's business can in any way effect such, nor should mine effect them. Nobody's marriage or divorce in ANY way 'cheapens' or has ANY impact on my marriage. How can anyone think otherwise?

    Short summary: As long as rights are attached to marriage then the govt is discriminating by denying any consenting group of two from participating in such. Either properly acknowledge them or get out of acknowledging them. Either works for me, though I'd prefer the latter, which is at should've been all along. Trying to claim to be the party of limited govt, personal responsiblity, and liberty when one wants the govt to dictate what 'marriage' it recognizes based on religious belief and tradition is one tough sell.

    Who gets the kids, the stuff, etc they say. Well, who gets what when they were never legally married? You want to get half his stuff if you break up? Convince him to sign a contract related to such.
     
  4. easymoney

    easymoney Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    818
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Location:
    central coast, calif
    The voters have sent a clear message about what they think about gay marriage, and it passed twice by a huge margin.
    Which to me means not all or even a simple majority of citizens are fruits or nuts...
     
  5. API

    API Political Action Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    21,512
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    SoCal
    In all things there are boundaries. Boundaries are limits. Boundaries become set over time to establish integrity and manifest values. Sometimes boundaries do get reset, and they should be when overall benefit to society is identified (like elimination of slavery). Changing everyone's boundary because it feels good to a limited group is not justified. Changing a boundary such as redefining marriage is a statement within itself for a limited application and just fails the test for an overall improvement with long term benefits for all.
     
  6. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    Big democracy guy are ya? As in majority rules?

    How about a society where 75% say you shouldn't be able to legally own a gun? Clear message, margin, all that......:z

    Thankfully our founders viewed majority rule with disdain.

    Unfortunately, too many today view it one way one day (and/or topic) and another the next.
     
  7. API

    API Political Action Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    21,512
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    SoCal
    Just points of order...
    Prop 22 (California Defense of Marriage Act) was approved by voters in 2000 but was overturned by the CA Supreme Court on the technicality that the act created a statute that was ruled inconsistent with the CA Constitution.

    Prop 8 (California Defense of Marriage Act) was re-approved by CA voters in 2008 as a new provision, (Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights) to the California Constitution, providing the same 14 words "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." as the previous act.

    Prop 22 was invalidated on the grounds that it exceeded the CA Constitution. The succeeding Prop 8 was enacted to assure compliance with the CA Supreme Court ruling that previously disqualified Prop 22.
     
  8. KENNEDY63

    KENNEDY63 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,373
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Location:
    MINNESOTA
    Private ownership of guns is expressly protected via the Second Amendment. No such amendment or verbage exists relative to same sex marriage.

    Many of our laws carry some "moral baggage".

    You kill someone, and you can walk if its self defense, serve a short term for "manslaughter" or be put to death for first degree murder. In all cases, the decedent is still dead.

    As API notes, we as a society have established boundaries.

    The fatal flaw in the author's argument is the belief that everyone will "contract" for a separation. It ain't gonna happen.
     
  9. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    I don't know that that assumption is made.

    I don't see why it's fatal.

    I don't see why it matters.

    Another thing you seem to cling to as justification for your stance here is the chaos scenario you paint due to handling this differently. For one, that doesn't make it right or not and such are not appropriate grounds for justification. Secondly, it doesn't stand up.
     
  10. API

    API Political Action Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    21,512
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    SoCal
    Meaningful differentiation requires a core constitutional process that results in the systematic adoption of modifications or additions to a Constitution. Morals and values are not the final result, but rather are the fuel that initiate the change process.
     

Share This Page