Gay marriage, social conservatives, and the future
I was not at the time, and still am not, a lawyer, but I wrote in 2008 that social conservatives ought to be putting their money, their strategizing, and their public activism behind building some kind of legal firewall to protect religious liberty once SSM becomes the law of the land. It was my guess that most Americans who favor SSM don’t want to punish churches and religious charities who disagree. We should appeal to them while they still exist.
(Incidentally, by no means do I believe this irenic view is held by all pro-SSM folks. For some, it is not enough that gay couples gain the right to marry; religious “bigots” must be made to suffer, as payback. You hear this week that conservatives could have had peace with the SSM movement if only they had granted civil unions a few years ago, but they refused. Anybody who believes that revisionist nonsense need only look at California, where gay couples had civil unions, and all the legal benefits of marriage, without calling it marriage. That wasn’t good enough. They wanted it all, because to deny it all would be to give some quarter to Bigotry, and we can’t have that.)
The bottom line is that we are fast reaching a place in which before the law, churches that adhere to traditional religious teaching on homosexuality in practice will have the same status under federal civil rights laws as racist churches. Religious conservatives may argue that discrimination against homosexuals is not the same thing as racial discrimination, because there is, in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic teaching, a moral aspect to sexual behavior that is not present in race — they can argue this, and they would be correct, but nobody cares, because the culture in general is coming to accept that there is no particular moral status inherent in homosexual behavior. Nor, for that matter, in most heterosexual behavior.
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
The battle has long since gone past a pet obsession for the SoCons. As is readily apparent to everyone but the outright trolls and the clueless gays like Jeyboy, pervert ‘marriage’ WILL result in a loss of religious freedom.
And since the issue is now in SCOUTS, it’s all on the line. Because we will not be able to overturn any of their decisions.
MelonCollie on December 13, 2012 at 11:01 AM
The gay lobby doesn’t really want “equality” but rather to use the force of government to coerce others to accept them instead of just tolerating them?
You don’t say.
gwelf on December 13, 2012 at 11:05 AM
Will Mosques get a pass? Or is this crowd truly anti-religion and not just Liberal?
DeathtotheSwiss on December 13, 2012 at 11:10 AM
An excellent question.
Bitter Clinger on December 13, 2012 at 11:12 AM
What challenges does gay marriage create for SoCons beyond those created by the women’s movement? Religious organizations necessarily differ from the state in their organizational rules. One can argue about the boundaries with regard to rights, but those boundaries relate to multiple issues (e.g., recently contraception). Gay marriage doesn’t, in-and-of-itself, change the fundamental church-state dynamic.
dedalus on December 13, 2012 at 11:19 AM
In Canada and Britain there are muslims suing gay people for being offensive to them and gay people suing muslims for being offensive to them.
gwelf on December 13, 2012 at 11:20 AM
Yes. Count on it.
The Rogue Tomato on December 13, 2012 at 11:20 AM
When Obama came out in favor of SSM I remember (naively) thinking at the time that it was a mistake because it would hurt him with blacks and Latinos. I realize now how very schrewd it actually was from the standpoint of vanquishing his enemies, many of whom are social conservatives. Now that he has dropped the act, the leftist steamroller can fire on all cylinders and turn religious liberty in America into a parking lot.
Kataklysmic on December 13, 2012 at 11:24 AM
Homophobic Islamists? Islamaphobic homosexuals?
thebrokenrattle on December 13, 2012 at 11:27 AM
Good to see someone finally brave enough to point out the truth. All you have to do is go on any liberal blog and their bigotry towards, and hatred of, Christians is right out in the open. Their constant calls to end tax exempt status for churches are only the beginning, they’ve already succeeded in driving most big names form the Boy Scouts with their protected status as “victims”, if you think they won’t succeed against churches, well, you’re a fool. Stand up to them now before it’s too late.
clearbluesky on December 13, 2012 at 11:36 AM
Then explain why the Catholic church no longer offers adoption services in Massachusetts.
gwelf on December 13, 2012 at 11:39 AM
The two men a few doors down the block got “married” this year. I just avoid the subject when I see them. To me “gay marriage” has the same authenticity as a drag queen impersonating Marilyn Monroe or Judy Garland. If it’s meant to be an homage to the original, I’m sorry, it’s not. It’s not even a valid impersonation. You’re taking something that was once good and making it into a joke.
Paul-Cincy on December 13, 2012 at 11:40 AM
Marilyn & Judy killed themselves with drugs and booze. Not sure they represent paragons of goodness. Maybe those who bother to relate to those two long-dead celebrities identify with their desperation.
dedalus on December 13, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Your comments on clueless gays & “pervert ‘marriage’ ” is why socons lose elections, and will never win again until they get their holier than thou noses out of other people’s business.
The youth vote, the coming electoral wave, would rather have corrupt idiots in charge, than judgmental idiots in charge. Demographics will stop this nonsense in the end, but you do the country no favors fiscally in the meantime.
Irritable Pundit on December 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM
I agree. They relate to the fake public personaes. But there was a real person inside MM and JG, pained and damaged though it was.
In the same way gay marriage identifies with the outer trappings of marriage. Underneath, what is consummation of such a marriage? Is there something sacred about the sexual union of two men or two women? What is joined in gay marriage.
“Gay marriage” is a caricature of marriage. You can stamp “USDA choice” on horsemeat, but that doesn’t make it a T-bone steak. You can call a homosexual union marriage, but that doesn’t make it so.
Paul-Cincy on December 13, 2012 at 11:56 AM
dedalus, there seems to be hope for you. Do you support True Marriage Equality?
Same questions. Do you support True Marriage Equality? It’s stupid for fiscal cons to lose the youth vote now AND in the very near future.
blink on December 13, 2012 at 12:05 PM
I agree with the sentiment here, but I think you’ve got this wrong. Liberals are just as “judgmental” and carry as much of a “holier than thou” attitude as the social cons (who tend to believe they’re saving souls and civilization through their politics).
The truth is that the culture is changing and a majority of people are accepting or more tolerant of homosexuality. They judge people on how much money they have, what kind of car they drive, what they believe, just not which gender they are attracted to. It’s not that people have changed dramatically, it’s that they changed religions.
DeathtotheSwiss on December 13, 2012 at 12:07 PM
Forcing Christians to embrace gay marriage would be like forcing Muslims to eat pork.
Rose on December 13, 2012 at 12:07 PM
Social conservatives ought to put their efforts into amending the Constitution defining marriage as one man and one woman.
There are 32 states that do that exact thing in their constitutions, use those as models.
Rebar on December 13, 2012 at 12:10 PM
The reality is that the government forces a changed society that fully helps the progressive agenda. By subsidizing and underwriting all the immoral choices of the population, there is no longer a way to prevent this decline in our culture.
The first step is to end federal entitlements and welfare programs. Only then can the nation turn to correct the culture which has become a burden.
astonerii on December 13, 2012 at 12:13 PM
Should adoption agencies be subject to state law? What’s the criteria for allowing exceptions?
dedalus on December 13, 2012 at 12:26 PM
Do you?
blink on December 13, 2012 at 12:28 PM
Oh the smell of freedom in the morning. Both the unions and the social-cons getting a big black eye for trying to dictate their backwards economic/theocratic values to everyone else via big government. The slap down of authoritarians is always invigorating.
ZachV on December 13, 2012 at 12:35 PM
The youth vote is all for judgmental idiots being in charge, they just want the judgmental idiots that they agree with in charge.
clearbluesky on December 13, 2012 at 12:36 PM
Exceptions? How about civic institutions be allowed to operate freely as long as they are doing no harm. Were Catholic adoption agencies harming children by not giving them to gay couples? Should the Catholic church be forced to pay for other peoples abortions?
What are the limits to what the government is allowed to license and require of institutions, businesses and individuals in order for them to simply operate openly?
gwelf on December 13, 2012 at 12:37 PM
You can take all this fruit marriage crap and shove it where the sun don’t shine.
Oh, wait, …
platypus on December 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM
I have to laugh at ANY gay marriage activist talking about “respecting state law.” If y’all respected state law, you wouldn’t be using the judiciary to push your agenda, now would you?
melle1228 on December 13, 2012 at 12:39 PM
ZachV, do you support True Marriage Equality, or are you an authoritarian on this issue?
It’s obvious that you don’t support the use of big government to dictate backward values to everyone – so this means that you MUST not oppose True Marriage Equality, right?
blink on December 13, 2012 at 12:40 PM
You’re going to hurt their widdle feelings and then they’ll go all drama on your buttocks.
Just saying.
platypus on December 13, 2012 at 12:41 PM
Another activist who uses language and doesn’t know what it means. Hint: Using the judiciary to force states to recognize MORE PRIVATE relationships is not SMALL GOVERNMENT. It is the epitome of BIG government. Want small government? Go to an attorney and make a private contract. Marriage is by definition big government…
melle1228 on December 13, 2012 at 12:42 PM
I know some of their arguments are hilarious. Zach claimed I wanted to run him over with my car.. and last night gay moving into states that recognize gay marriage was compared to the plight of the American Indian. LOL
melle1228 on December 13, 2012 at 12:45 PM
Well, he might make an interesting grille ornament.
And what are the going to call the migration? Great Movement? The Trail of TearJerking? Nutty Fruits Road? Pavement Pounders Highway?
It’s too much man; let it all hang out.
platypus on December 13, 2012 at 12:56 PM
Oh, they have no problem with judgmental idiots in charge as long as they get all the free stuff they believe they are entitled to just for being.
tommyboy on December 13, 2012 at 12:58 PM
platypus on December 13, 2012 at 12:56 PM
LMAO.. I vote for Trail of Perpetual Victimhood, but that is just me.
melle1228 on December 13, 2012 at 12:59 PM
Gay marriage is going to happen in all 50 states. The SC will see to it. This is just reality.
What will the gays want/demand next? That’s the question. There is always a next.
My guess is that every church in America is going to get sued.
The continuing war on freedom from the left. Why they should be concerned with what happens in your church is just another example of what control freaks they are.
Moesart on December 13, 2012 at 12:59 PM
You are no better than the Islamists in the Middle East, blink. You read from your Holy Book and tell, actually, DEMAND that everyone follows it to finest particulars of your interpretation of your religion.
Forget the Jews, Buddhists, the mainstream Protestants, atheists/agnostics or anyone else who accepts and supports gay marriage: they don’t have Freedom of Religion in our country. Only you do! And forget actual reasoning or any sort of empirical evidence to debate upon; marriage’s definition is marriage’s definitions for marriage’s sake, because apparently, marriage fell from sky.
ZachV on December 13, 2012 at 1:01 PM
Who said that?
ZachV on December 13, 2012 at 1:02 PM
ZachV on December 13, 2012 at 1:01 PM
Wow. You’re exactly right. Theat’s why every state in that nation has approved giving homosexuals the right to redefine the word “marriage”.
In fact, in 1st Babylonians, it says, “And, the Lord made Adam and Steve, so that man would have another man as a companian and would propagate his race”…
Oh, wait…///
kingsjester on December 13, 2012 at 1:05 PM
Jetboy
melle1228 on December 13, 2012 at 1:07 PM
First off, EVERY LAW is a moral judgement. That is what the frickin law is. And just because something is featured in the Bible doesn’t mean that prescribing to that theory is biblical mmkay. A lot of us aren’t religious. That being said, do we get rid of perjury laws because the Bible mentions lying? Do we get rid of murder because the Bible mentions it?
melle1228 on December 13, 2012 at 1:09 PM
Too bad your lies have been exposed on that.
It seems you and your fellow gay-sex marriage bigots are quite the authoritarians yourself.
And indeed, the Obama Party you worship demands that your gay-sex authoritarianism trumps even the First Amendment.
So ZachV, you don’t believe in freedom of religion or belief, you demand that the government punish anyone who speaks in public in contradiction to what you want, and you consider gay sex to trump in every respect the Constitution and the First Amendment.
By the way, ZachV, you claim your sexual orientation makes you discriminate against religious belief and makes you incapable of obeying or respecting the First Amendment. Since you can’t prevent yourself from discriminating and are incapable of following even the basic laws of our country, shouldn’t you be denied public office or the ability to teach? After all, you and your Obama Party scream that racists should be banned from public office and from teaching.
northdallasthirty on December 13, 2012 at 1:11 PM
But, as we know, you and your Obama Party support and endorse radical Islamists, so why should we care?
That’s what makes you really hilarious, ZachV. You scream and scream and scream about Christians, but you and your Obama Party cower and whine about “diversity” whenever confronted with Muslim misbehavior.
Why? Simple. Muslims punch back twice as hard.
Perhaps that’s the lesson Christians and Jews need to take to heart. Gays like ZachV will leave you alone, condemn those who criticize you, and even blather about how “the future must not belong to those who slander (insert religion)” if you make it clear that any slur, any statement, will be met with rioting, burning, and murder.
northdallasthirty on December 13, 2012 at 1:14 PM
One one side:
Years of cold, rational discussion of the moralities behind unjust actions such as murder, lying and theft; using empirical evidence and multitudes of differing philosophical schools of though to derive laws against these.
On the other:
Well, Jesus doesn’t mention it, but you can kinda derive it from these one or two passages.
… I say we repeal the former.
ZachV on December 13, 2012 at 1:16 PM
Actually, the former is why there are laws against gay-sex marriage.
Humans have been experimenting with it for millenia and have decided it’s not worth the effort and not where society should focus its energies.
You seem to be in denial over that, ZachV. Is that because you’re an irrational bigot who wants the law to reflect your hatred of religious belief?
northdallasthirty on December 13, 2012 at 1:20 PM
CENTURIES of marriage and not one society has ever legally recognized it, mmmkay… You are citing wisdom and tradition for murder and lying laws. The same applies for marriage.
And since I don’t care what Jesus has to say on the matter, I say meh.. And btw, you really should actually read a Bible before quoting,Jesus. Jesus specifically stated that marriage man/woman and sex outside of marriage is a sin.. C
melle1228 on December 13, 2012 at 1:21 PM
northdallasthirty on December 13, 2012 at 1:20 PM
He makes the the other side’s argument for them, doesn’t he. We apprently should keep murder and perjury laws because of tradition, but the same wisdom does not apply to marriage.
melle1228 on December 13, 2012 at 1:22 PM
What are you talking about?
I support True Marriage Equality. Do you?
Btw, those that oppose True Marriage Equality want to use the power of big government to enforce their standards of morality (whatever those standards might be) on others. Does this describe you?
Again, what are you talking about? I support True Marriage Equality – which means that I support the right for EVERYONE to marry as they chose. That means that I support everyone having Freedom!
The question is, do you you support giving everyone equal freedoms?
Are you joking? I have all the reasoning and empirical evidence that I need to debate in favor of True Marriage Equality. All the reasoning and empirical evidence is on MY side. If you don’t support TME, the it’s because of some ancient, personal morality standard that you’re clinging to. It certainly isn’t because of reasoning and empirical evidence.
blink on December 13, 2012 at 1:26 PM
This is a very strange way of saying that perjury and murder run counter to your moral standards, and that you support using big government to enforce YOUR moral standards on others.
Now, please answer the question about TME.
blink on December 13, 2012 at 1:31 PM
So ZachV refuses to answer. I think it’s because he wants to avoid giving an answer that he knows is bigoted.
blink on December 13, 2012 at 2:55 PM