Second look at gay marriage and legalizing weed?
So in the spirit of breaking out of the “I told you so” box, let me offer two places where I think the post-Romney G.O.P. could improve its position by changing in ways that don’t necessarily dovetail with my own preconceptions and beliefs. The first, perhaps over-obviously, is the issue of gay marriage, where my side of the argument has lost enough ground with voters to render the Republican Party’s official position on the issue — and particularly the call for a never-gonna-happen constitutional amendment — an empty gesture to a now-collapsed consensus, which is likely to soon alienate more voters than it mobilizes. It’s probably no longer a question of “if” but “when” the party beats a strategic retreat on the issue (I expect there will be a pro-life, pro-gay marriage Republican nominee within a generation if not sooner), and it makes a certain raw political sense to pre-emptively declare a big tent on the question, and make the party’s litmus tests support for federalism rather than a Supreme Court settlement and (as Rod Dreher of the American Conservative has argued, presciently and strenuously) support for the broadest possible protections for religious liberty. I’m not sure how such a shift would affect the rate at which evangelicals and conservative Catholics turn out for Republicans — that would be the big strategic risk, obviously. But my sense is that the party would just be formally acknowledging what many religious conservatives already accept — that a political platform can’t hold back a cultural tide, and that if the American understanding of what marriage is and ought to be someday turns back in a direction that cultural conservatives find congenial, the details of the Republican platform will be largely incidental to that shift.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Yeah. Gotta say, if I was worried about breaches of liberty by our neighbors, I’d be just a touch more worried about the war in Mexico, than queers getting hitched in Canada. And I’m really not all that worried about it in America, much less Canada. As far as people getting sued, I’ll trade gays getting married for the castration of trial attorneys, any day of the week…
JohnGalt23 on November 16, 2012 at 9:34 PM
Your battleship is made of tissue paper. Why waste firepower?
MelonCollie on November 16, 2012 at 9:35 PM
In May of 2006 Maggie Gallagher wrote: Banned in Boston
The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty.
Gallagher quoted Chai Feldblum saying (yes, that Chai Feldblum who was first an Obama recess appointment to the EEOC and has now been confirmed by the Senate. She is also pro-abortion, and even before her tenure the EEOC was limiting religious freedom of a Catholic college.):
INC on November 16, 2012 at 9:36 PM
This.
“Oh I can’t handle the truth. I’m going to call him a bigot. I’m such a cool guy.”
-the alchemist
22044 on November 16, 2012 at 9:36 PM
I’m far from a fool but I am unrepentant. I would have to have something to repent before I could be repentant.
alchemist19 on November 16, 2012 at 9:36 PM
Have you ever at any time argued against Obamacare because of the utter failure of nationalized health care in other countries?
Have you ever at any time argued against socialism because of its utter failure in other countries?
INC on November 16, 2012 at 9:36 PM
You mean besides ignoring the evidence that’s been posted for your benefit?
MelonCollie on November 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM
I was throwing you a line by calling you unrepentant. Too bad.
Otherwise, thank you for keeping proving my point.
22044 on November 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM
Alright, no more arguing with fools lest I become like the alchemist.
22044 on November 16, 2012 at 9:38 PM
I should link this page on the wikipedia page for heavy metal poisoning.
MelonCollie on November 16, 2012 at 9:40 PM
I argue against Obamacare, and all forms of socialism, on the merits, or lack thereof, of their philosophy. That such collectivist experiments fail in Canada and Europe is a rather predictable result of flawed philosophies, and is certainly evidence presentable for argument. But to argue that because something has negative repercussions in Canada, alone makes the prima facie case that it is unfit for America is a fallacy.
If that is your argument against gay marriage, you had better damned well be better prepared than that…
JohnGalt23 on November 16, 2012 at 9:40 PM
You finally came up with something half-clever! I’m tempted to let it go uncommented on because I’m so impressed, like a proud papa watching a child grow up before him. But then again if you tried that hard I think you deserve a comment.
I am stubborn but only to a point. Actually, I used to be very opposed to gay marriage up until one of my homosexual friends challenged me to make a logical argument against it that didn’t come down to discrimination against gay people for the sake of discrimination against gay people. I tried valiantly but failed miserably, rethought the matter and changed my mind on the issue. I’m hoping eventually the rest of you will as well.
alchemist19 on November 16, 2012 at 9:41 PM
Free salon beard-trimmings for everyone!
Whoops! That’s what I get for riffing off a Title before reading the thread (or article). Continue, gents.
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 16, 2012 at 9:43 PM
Once again many of you get it wrong. It’s not about pot or gay marriage at all. Personally I don’t get high, nor do I agree with gay marriage but the issue is federalism and personal liberty. If you actual,y support small government and federalism you should agree that these issues should fall to the states.
MoreLiberty on November 16, 2012 at 9:48 PM
Oh, no, by no means. I have several others going on in the other headlines thread. I brought up Canada because of some earlier comments about it and our First Amendment.
I mentioned the others because in the course of arguing this and the other two issues I mentioned people always deny negative consequences despite evidence to the contrary.
And negative consequences certainly serve as a point of logical argument.
INC on November 16, 2012 at 9:53 PM
Nope.
There is no need for society to waste resources on non-productive relationships.
Marriage exists because opposite-sex couplings produce children, and those children have no capability to care for themselves or legal right to advocate for themselves. We create marriage to provide both, and we place incentives within it because a) it is a societal good for parents to raise the children they produce and we want to encourage it, and b) to offset the cost to the individuals involved of doing so.
Same-sex couplings have no such issue, so they need not be treated or encouraged the same way under law.
Furthermore, as is shown above, gay marriage has nothing to do with marriage, and everything to do with punishing religious beliefs. A simple way of illustrating this is that the anti-traditional marriage sites have nothing but antireligious bigotry and screams of “hater”; the pro-traditional marriage sites, i.e. Focus on the Family, have numerous resources for married couples and those considering marriage, and resources for avoiding divorce.
I AM a gay man, and marriage is relevant to society only in the context in which it’s applied to opposite-sex couples. Gay marriage is nothing but an excuse for antireligious bigotry and hate, and invariably those heterosexuals who support it are more anti-Christian than they are pro-gay.
By the way, your gay friends who hate you unless you obey them on gay-sex marriage…..they’re not really your friends. They’re your abusers.
northdallasthirty on November 16, 2012 at 9:54 PM
No.
Societies and countries have protected through legal means because of the understanding and recognition of the importance to society of the mutual and complementary love, enjoyment and support uniquely provided by each sex to the other, and because of the understanding and recognition of the importance of the future of a society through the protection and rearing of children in a family setting in which they learn love, trust, discipline and identity through the unique and different abilities and perspectives of the two sexes.
INC on November 16, 2012 at 9:55 PM
And of course you failed.
“DIDN’T come down to” is a negative, and it is logically impossible to prove a negative.
Ask your “homosexual friend” next time to answer this similar question: provide evidence that gay marriage will be equally as beneficial to society as opposite-sex marriage.
And then shoot down his or her every argument by using the opposite-sex divorce rate, the rate of STDs, etc.
northdallasthirty on November 16, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Why does gay marriage have to be equally beneficial to society as heterosexual marriage in order for it to be legally recognized?
alchemist19 on November 16, 2012 at 10:08 PM
What evidence have I ignored? I’ve refuted a great deal of nonsense but I don’t think I’ve ignored anything. If there’s something I’ve missed then say so and I’ll happily kick it down as well.
alchemist19 on November 16, 2012 at 10:11 PM
Because what they want is the same degree of benefits as heterosexual marriage, and not just tax-wise.
They want equal pay for unequal qualifications.
MelonCollie on November 16, 2012 at 10:14 PM
Pursuit of happiness as long as there is not to much salt or trans-fat consumed or Carbon produces then there is no happiness.
tjexcite on November 16, 2012 at 10:17 PM
If you want to deny hospital visitation to two people who love each other then you’re a cruel human being and I have no time for you.
alchemist19 on November 16, 2012 at 10:19 PM
Marriage is unique. The standards of marriage are for the benefit of society. Since the argument (1 of many) is that it is irrational to exclude deviant behavior pairings, proving benefit to society that can only be provided by being included is the threshhold test.
All this equal protection and equal treatment under the law crap is from doofusses that either flunked law school or never took a constitutional class. Deviant sex pairings are not under the law – they are seeking to be under the law. And the law says no.
And the first time I am annoyed by some idiot trying to prove something about his sexuality, I will sue him/her. And prevail. As a matter of fact, all of the lawsuits based on qu33r rights are facially frivolous and should never survive a 12(b)(6) motion.
platypus on November 16, 2012 at 10:23 PM
Red herring! Hospitals are private property and can deny access to anyone they want. Especially if not excluding someone would disturb the other patients.
Plus, your dying partner is most likely in a hospice already and every hospice that caters to “gays” already has arrangements with hospitals that will admit loved ones.
Grow up and stop lying.
platypus on November 16, 2012 at 10:27 PM
Your whole premise is based on your personal, arbitrary definition of what is deviant, unless of course you want to get really liberal with what “deviant” means.
alchemist19 on November 16, 2012 at 10:29 PM
Funny how libertarians rail on about how there is no difference between the democrat party and the GOP, then in the next breath demand that the GOP adopt the democrat’s social platform in it’s entirety.
Funny.
Rebar on November 16, 2012 at 10:32 PM
If you were a patient in a hospital you could be bothered if a lesbian couple were allowed to spend time together before one of them died? How do you have that kind of time in your life that you can worry about things like that?
Even if I accepted your “most likely” premise, which I do not, even one example would be too many.
alchemist19 on November 16, 2012 at 10:32 PM
I have a very strong libertarian streak (obviously) but I see plenty of difference between the Democrat Party and the GOP. The Democrats are full blown Loony Toon socialsts, the GOP just needs to apply the limited government concepts they say they believe in. That’s why I vote straight ticket Republican. And from the looks of things you guys need all the help you can get.
alchemist19 on November 16, 2012 at 10:40 PM
Actually, it is not. Check a dictionary.
It doesn’t matter what I want or find objectionable – it’s about whether medical staff finds certain behaviors inimical to the well-being of their patients. Like I said, it’s up to the hospital. Nobody needs to specify their relationship to a patient in order to visit the patient. The only time there might be a problem is when the visitor is trying to do something other than visit.
And I’m glad one is too many for you. Neither of us is king so we don’t get to say. BTW, Sutherland’s Statutory Construction will teach you how to read the law and Restatements will teach you what the law is.
Meanwhile, try not to impose your desires on others.
platypus on November 16, 2012 at 10:56 PM
Interracial marriage is also deviant. Ban away!
alchemist19 on November 16, 2012 at 11:01 PM
If you were concerned about hospital visitation, you’d be working the laws in that direction rather than screaming for gay-sex marriage.
But you’re not, for a very simple answer: changing hospital visitation rules doesn’t arbitrarily attack and punish Christians.
Why is it that gay-sex liberal bigots like yourself won’t actually help gay people? Why do you have to use us as excuses for your proxy war against Christians, bigot?
northdallasthirty on November 16, 2012 at 11:17 PM
Sex has nothing to do with anything. Why are you even going there?
I have nothing at all against Christians; don’t put words in my mouth. I do have something against bigots and not all Christians are bigots. Somewhere around 70% of the people under 34 are in favor of gay marriage (and are all gay themselves according to some of the more embarrassing things thrown out in this thread so far) and I’d bet a majority of them are Christians. I have no problem whatsoever with them or their faith. Where I do start to take issue is with people who don’t believe in the Constitution that I cherish and revere, or who only believes in it when it’s convenient for them. The United States is a Constitutional republic and not a theocracy yet some people appear to be in favor of throwing the Constitution out the window if it says something that runs counter to their personal religious beliefs. It doesn’t work that way.
alchemist19 on November 16, 2012 at 11:40 PM
It may be rude to repeat myself but I will because no one has addressed:
Rather than get upset about gay marriage why not just remove the government’s incentives to “marry”? The gay issue comes about because the government recognizes and provides privileges to a subset of the population based on marital status. The government discriminates against people who are “single” to encourage marriage for the purpose of procreation and the sustainability of the population. There is no reason to allow this favoritism to attach to the religious concept of marriage. Marriage needs a divorce from government. Let the gays contract between each other for whatever sort of things they want to contract for. If the government doesn’t get involved in marriage i.e. it is a contractual matter then religious freedom is preserved.
To add on, gay marriage is something that was propelled mostly by the dysfunctional employer based healthcare situation we have now. Conservatives are good at tracing government disincentives as well as the relationships between the letter of law and the law of reality. Gay marriage is a fundamental blind-spot. If you see gay marriage as a religious abomination then oppose it by removing any incentive for gay people to marry.
nokarmahere on November 16, 2012 at 11:49 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2