Monday, May 14, 2012

Primer: Gay Marriage 2012

I didn’t want to talk about gay marriage because, frankly, I don’t care. But the issue is having some fascinating ramifications, especially with Newsweek calling Obama our first gay president. Here are some things you may or may not realize yet.

● My Position: Before we begin, allow me to remind you of my positions on gay marriage: I am opposed to it on Libertarian grounds. To allow gay marriage would be to force people to accept something to which they are philosophically and morally opposed. Whether they are right or not, the government should not do that (LINK). And no, I don’t believe for a minute that an exception can be made to exempt people with philosophical or religious objections because those exceptions get undermined, as is happening in Britain (LINK). That said, I do believe this issue is lost (LINK), especially as this is a generational issue. However, we’re not there yet and, interestingly, Obama’s recent decision to (fake)embrace gay marriage is causing significant blowback. Observe. . .

● Whoops: Obama’s stance is not going doing well with his own troops or with independents. Five Senators facing re-election in conservative or battleground states have refused to back Obama’s mealy position: Sens. Jon Tester (Mont.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Joe Machin (W. byGod Va.), Bob Casey (Pa.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.). Imagine that! These people are so scared of the issue that they won’t even take Obama’s toothless copout of feigning support for the issue in the abstract while wringing their hands that there is nothing they can do about it.

What this tells us is that gay marriage is highly unpopular in these states. And that means Obama’s stance has hurt him in Pennsylvania and Florida, both of which could be key states depending on how things go. And if Pennsylvania goes against Obama, so will Ohio. . . and Wisconsin. Heck, even in unionized Michigan, Obama only leads by 5% -- 45% to 40%.

More evidence for this self-inflicted harm comes from a recent Gallup poll, which found that 23% of independents say Obama’s gay-marriage stance will make them less likely to vote for him, while only 13% say it will make them more likely to vote for him. That’s a 2-1 split, which mimics all the other polls which show that independents are breaking against Obama by a wide margin. This was a mistake.

● Whoops II: Interestingly, the one person to really benefit from Obama’s gay marriage stance has been Romney. By simply repeating his opposition to gay marriage, Romney has given evangelicals an opportunity to jump on his bandwagon and they’ve done so with gusto. A recent poll showed that evangelicals support him by 67% to 22% over Obama. And that actually understates the support because that includes black evangelicals, who support Obama 94% to 6%. When they are factored out, Romney’s popularity among white evangelicals rises to 82% (up from 40% in October). So much for evangelicals sitting this one out.

● Whoops III: Now comes an interesting question. I wonder if Obama hasn’t killed gay marriage with his announcement? Here’s the thing. Gay marriage has always been a tricky issue for the Democrats. It’s pretty clear that gay marriage will win over the public in the near future. But until that time, offering support for gay marriage is career suicide outside of the big liberal states. So Democrats have needed to walk a fine line of offering enough support to make gays think they support them, without offering enough support to anger the public.

This has resulted in the strategy of getting gay marriage passed in the liberal states and then using that as a wedge to get the Federal government to impose gay marriage on the conservative states. That way, the Democrats in the conservative states can claim they had no hand in it. So far, that’s worked really well for them since the only alternative position was the one espoused by conservatives of total opposition to gay marriage.

But Obama just created a third alternative. He said that you could support gay marriage in principal, yet believe the issues must be decided by the states.

Think about this. What’s he done is create an out (no pun intended). Democrats all over the heartland can now proudly proclaim their 100% support for gay marriage while simultaneously claiming that their love and respect for the voters of their state, who don’t want it, prevents them from supporting it locally. This is the perfect evasion. And on a hot-button issue, politicians seek evasions.

I think Obama’s stance has set the gay marriage movement back for decades to come as Democrats will now abandon the all-or-nothing game and will latch onto, “yes, but not for us” position. This means gay marriage is unlikely to spread much beyond the handful of states which already allow it (currently, 12 states prohibit same-sex marriage by statute and 30 prohibit it in their constitution).

If I’m right, Obama won’t be remembered as the first gay President as Newsweek just declared, he will go down in history as the man who nearly killed the gay marriage movement. Interesting.

● Predictionmania!!: Finally, Rand Paul will be president one day. You heard it here first. Here’s my thinking. Ron Paul is leaving politics after decades of jousting at windmills. But believe it or not, he’s had some stunning success in the past 5-8 years in reshaping the economics of the Republican Party and he’s left a huge movement looking for an heir. Rand Paul is well suited to claim that mantle. But that movement has never been able to deliver Paul the nomination because Ron Paul’s Libertarianism scares the hell out of Social Conservatives, so why would this help Rand Paul? Because Rand Paul is different. Unlike Ron Paul, Rand has been staking out social conservative positions. On the gay marriage issue, for example, he came out solidly opposed to gay marriage and he did so by mentioning the Bible and saying we should not “give up our traditions. We’ve got 6,000 years of tradition.” Then he spoke of the need for “traditionalists” to save the Republic by defending the family. Said Paul:

“We’ve introduced the Life at Conception Act, the Pro-Life Act, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, I’m also co-sponsor of the Human Life Amendment. I’ve also been trying to defund Planned Parenthood. Anybody here for that?”
What Paul is doing is claiming Ron Paul’s economic mantle while simultaneously flirting with social conservatives. This is a truly winning strategy if he can pull it off, and I suspect he can. Unless Paul makes a mistake by going off a deep end somewhere, I would say he’s someone to watch as a Presidential candidate in 2020 or 2024.


Kelly said...

Rand Paul! LOL! That's going to upset a lot of soc-cons.

Did you see that Ron Paul basically announced he's quitting today?

CrispyRice said...

Interesting predictions, Andrew! I could get behind Rand Paul for Prez, definitely.

Our local morning conservative DJ replayed that YouTube of the guy who claimed to have gay sex with Obama while doing coke in the back of his car. That's a nice thing to hear at 6:30 am. ;) He could be a nut, but it does my heart good to have it out there just the same, LOL.

AndrewPrice said...

Kelly, I suspect that by the time he's ready to run, most social conservatives won't have a problem with him. That's the reason he's taking these steps now.

I did not hear about Ron Paul, but he might as well because he's not going to achieve anything else by continuing to run.

Kelly said...

That is an interesting point about Obama killing the momentum for gay marriage. I think you might be right and I wonder how they will get around that? Especially if the Supreme Court rejects the idea that gay marriage is in the Constitution.

Joel Farnham said...

My prediction is Gay Marriage won't happen. This has been the closest the Gay Lobby has to accomplish this feat. The pendulum is going to swing the other way.

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, There is obviously a lot that still has to happen, but it's interesting to me to see Rand trying to get "street cred" with the social conservatives since his father basically fought them.

There have been rumors since before his election that Obama is gay. There were questions about who he shared his apartment with and how many beds there were, etc. and why Michelle refused to join him in DC.

I actually don't put any faith into it. I think he's just a narcissist who doesn't care about other people including his wife.

AndrewPrice said...

Kelly, I am confident the Supreme Court will say the issue is not a constitutional issue and that poses a real problem for Democrats. I have no idea how they plan to get around it? But once it becomes clear they can't deliver on their promises, then the gays are going to start looking twice if they really want to be latched to the Democrats.

CrispyRice said...

I read an article yesterday that talked about that O is "on the down low." One of the author's bits of evidence is that gay black men tend to marry the stereotypical "angry black woman." Ummm, check.

'Course, you know if the accusation had been made against a Republican, it would be splattered everywhere in about 30 seconds. (AND the gay community still wouldn't vote for him, either. Ugh.)

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, It will happen because of the generational issue. When you break down the support by age group, you find that old people are overwhelmingly opposed. People in my age bracket are split. And people younger than me are overwhelmingly in favor. As the older folks die off, this will become the law. It's just a question of when and how and if the gays will rip the Democratic Party apart because they are unwilling to wait.

Joel Farnham said...


Okay, the problem I foresee is that the Gay Lobby will make themselves so toxic that anything they want people will go out of their way to keep it from them. People are petty that way, but...

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, Is that what that means? We should take off the license plate on the official Commentarama Pimp Mobile! ;)

It's possible the O is gay. Like I said, there are rumors.

And you're right, if a Republican had made these allegation, they would be smeared as bigots. But if they had been made against a Republican (say Mitt "the bully" Romney), they would be investigated mercilessly and questions would have been raised about the fitness of the Republican. Total hypocrisy.

And yeah, Michelle sure fits the stereotype doesn't she? I keep waiting for her to say "talk to the hand n*ggas!"

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, The gay lobby is toxic, but the problem is that younger people just don't care. They don't see gays as immoral and they've bought into the idea that the gay marriage debate is about evil white racist men who run nasty churches full of child molesters and what to control everyone's lives v. their friends. The polls really are overwhelming.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Now it's possible they change their minds as they grow older and have kid, but I doubt it. It's just become accepted in that end of the culture.

DUQ said...

Fascinating as always Andrew. I actually had noticed that Rand Paul seemed to be charting a different course than his father, but never put together that he's trying to unite to coalitions. If he does that, then he could easily win the nomination!

Unknown said...

Gee, if all of this is true, that makes Obama our first biracial, bisexual president. What a country! LOL

This helps Romney for many reasons, among them the fact that it now pits the pro-gay, anti-gay factions against each other, leaving the real issue of the campaign wide open--the economy. While the gay marriage debate goes on on the sidelines, Romney can come up with his economic solutions while Obama has to hide from his record.

Ed said...

It is interesting that this has managed to get the evangelicals into Romney's corner. You thought that would happen and I agreed. I can't see them favoring "the Muslim" over "the cultist." I read that a lot of them are happy that Romney didn't claim that the Mormon God is the same as the evangelical God.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks DUQ! If he does pull this together, then he could easily capture the nomination because between those two wings, you've got 70-80% of Republican voters. The only real question is whether or not he can divorce himself from his father enough that the social conservatives don't see him as a drug legalization, open border and free love advocate.

Ed said...

By the way, I see the bullying thing is imploding. There are even articles now about "did this criticism go too far" and "shouldn't there be a limitations period on these kinds of controversies"? That is not something the MSM has ever done in the past - give up a scandal against a Republican. They always wait until the Republicans try to hit the Democrat, then they claim "oh, we went too far last time."

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, That's true. This has inspired the evangelicals to get over their concerns and come fight for Romney. That means he no longer needs to run around talking about the issue and can focus on the economy. And that is where Obama is in deep, deep trouble.

Also, this is still causing Obama problems. Today he had to do a conference call with a group of black ministers who apparently were quite irate and not in a very forgiving mood on this issue. I take their claims they may not support him with a HUGE grain of salt, but it's enough that they are distracting his campaign and making the squishy middle uneasy.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I would be surprised if anyone really believed that evangelicals would go for Obama over Romney. I just can't see that. Obama is everything they hate. Romney shares their views, he's just a different religion.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, The bullying thing has completely imploded on them. Not only was there no chance it would take root, but the whole story began to fall apart as people realized the accusers were just Democrats trying to turn a minor, childhood 50 year old story into some meaningful political story. And of course, they overplayed their hand.

Nevertheless, it is interesting that the MSM is already beginning its self-evaluation mode. They usually save that until after they've milked every last bit of anger they can, and until the public expects them to go after a Democrat in the same way. That's when they start asking question like if they "went too far."

Notawonk said...

I am sick to death of this, but i likey that the dems have pushed themselves into a corner with their no support support of gay marriage. i still say the dems forget that WE CAN SEE THEM 24/7 by way of the internets (thanky, al gore!). ain't technology an amazing thang.

AndrewPrice said...

Patti, I like that -- "we can see them!" That is so true and I think the Democrats have forgotten that. They still think the flow of information can be controlled by the MSM, only it can't.

I'm sick of the issue too. I honestly just don't care anymore and don't want to hear about it. But it's hilarious that it's imploding on Obama. And he has only himself and Biden to blame.

Ed said...

Andrew, I haven't read much about the bullying thing until the last day or so and everything I've seen has been negative about how much coverage it's gotten and why it's not relevant. It's really stunning to see the MSM turn on itself this early and I wonder what that means?

T-Rav said...

What a coincidence, I was just torching my relationships with several friends on Facebook over this very issue.

If this announcement sets gay marriage back a generation or two, I will finally have something to thank Barack Obama for. And that, quite frankly, scares me.

Also, I've read today about the blowback this is causing among blacks, especially among black churches. Is it going to cause them to vote Republican? No. But it might dampen their enthusiasm for Obama considerably, and at this stage, he can hardly afford a dampening of enthusiasm among any of his pillars.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, "torching my relationships." Do tell! :)

Believe it or not, you have a lot to thank Obama for. He set back the cause of socialism and destroyed the Democratic Party. Now he's setting back the cause of gay marriage.

I read the same thing about the black churches. It won't make them switch sides (though they threatened it) but the fact it's distracting his campaign and keeping this issue in the news is what counts. This is really bad for him.

What do you think about Rand? Can the social conservatives and Ran Paul become friends?

Tennessee Jed said...

"It's all about the economy, stupid!" That is true for me, but this is a fascinating sideshow. Anything that helps isolate B.O. is a good thing. Oh, and my how far Newsweek has fallen. Drove 600 miles across North Carolina through the pig farms. We still have plenty of bitter clingers over there. Jolly Good Show, Andrew :)

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I kept up with it mostly. The minute the news hit, they released a ton of anti-bullying articles. Then people asked why this was relevant, so they did a whole series of "why this matters" articles. Then the story began to fall apart and Romney handled it expertly. So now they are running away from it, acting like they had nothing to do with it so it doesn't reflect poorly on them the next time they try to run with a story like this.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Jed! I agree. This election is all about the economy and this gay marriage thing has done to Obama what Santorum did to Romney -- taken him off message and made him struggle with the very people he needs to win the election.

Welcome back from the land of pig farms! :)

The whole dispute about North Carolina won't help either because it shows a total lack of tolerance for differing opinions among the Democrats.

Did you see that the idiotic Democratic Governor of NC whined, "this makes us look like Mississippi." Nice.

Ed said...

Andrew, That makes sense if they are just concerned that being seen backing a failed smear will reflect poorly on them. I'm sure they think there are a whole bunch more smears yet to be had, so why waste it all on just this one? I was hoping maybe they had seen the light, but that seems unlikely.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, Sadly, it is a little too much to hope they've come around. It's more likely that they are just worried about getting caught in the blowback. So they move on and act like "oh, we never took this seriously, and those who did were wrong."

ellenB said...

I think your view on gay marriage is rather interesting. Most people argue the morality, but you really cut through that and point out that it doesn't matter who is right or wrong, the real issue is that people should have the right to their own views. That's really pretty brilliant and it exposes a lot of loose thinking on the libertarian side in particular because they've fallen for the idea that freedom is one-sided.

I don't know enough about Rand Paul yet to know if I would back him. It is interesting that he seems to be charting a very different course than his father though.

LL said...

I think that Rand Paul would make a splendid president. I also think that his father is far to eccentric to be acceptable to all but fringe players.

AndrewPrice said...

LL, That's what's struck me as well. Ron Paul was very eccentric and few people could accept him. But Rand Paul seems like Ron Paul without the crazy. I don't know if it's just an act or not, but he seems to be very smart about the causes he picks and the people he embraces. And it strikes me that he's building a lot of support with his decisions.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, can Rand Paul and social cons be friends? Sure. I like the guy, although not without qualification. I'm not saying he's my first choice for being the next nominee for President, but I'd be just fine with him.

Actually, most of them aren't my friends. They're more like "friends of a friend." So I don't care. ;-)

AndrewPrice said...

Ellen, Thanks! I have a lot of libertarian tendencies, but as a group libertarians too wrongly often accept the idea that if someone wants it, then it should be given. That's intellectually lazy and it's wrong. You have to look at the freedoms at stake and ask who is gaining and who is losing and what are they gaining or losing.

And on the gay marriage issue, the problem with arguing morality is that not everyone agrees that gay=immoral. So once you start arguing this issue on morality grounds, it becomes a game of how many people can you convince and you find yourself subject to the tyranny of the majority. In reality, the real issue is that everyone should have a right to their own beliefs, be they right or wrong, and the government should not be making one group accept the morality of another. And that means, the government should not be imposing gay marriage on people who don't find it moral.

T-Rav said...

Oh, and I did see that about Governor Purdue and her concern that NC now looks like Mississippi. Which is just ridiculous. No Mississippian I have ever met has ever suggested that the democratic process needs to be suspended until further notice.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, It sounds like you're having a good time at least! :)

On Rand Paul, consider how much farther that is than his father ever got?! He father generally brought anger and laughter from so-cons. Rand really has taken an interesting approach here. I think we're going to have to watch him closely in the coming years to see what kind of politician he turns out the be!

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Are you saying Mississippi wouldn't have a totalitarian fool like her? ;)

I think it's amazing that a southern politician would try invoke the name of another state to smear their own voters?

tryanmax said...

I've got so much to say, but it will have to wait. I'm running to Bruning's Omaha campaign office and then to my brother's birthday dinner.

If anybody is curious about goings on in Nebraska, I threw up a blog on my lunch break:

Sarah, Breitbart, stop trying to throw the Nebraska senate election!

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I can't promise our blog will be here when you get back. ;)

Have a nice time. We'll leave the light on for you!

The New Order said...


AndrewPrice said...

Oh man, not again! We went over this once before. The national community will be assimilated INTO this blog!! Resistance is idiotic!

T-Rav said...

Andrew, no they would not. :-) Although, given the influx of Yankee migration into NC in recent years, I have no idea if she even qualifies as a Southerner.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Excellent post, Andrew!

My only quibble is that most socons don't have much of a problem with most of Ron Pauls economic stances.

It's the legalization of all drugs, idiotic foreign policy, and let's get rid of every alphabet agency (never gonna happen but we can limit their power and neuter them over time) that most socons have a problem with.

IRT the gay marriage thing, the left also wants to redefine the word marriage.

Essentially imposing a new definition of the word to include same sex (which will open the door to polygamy and incest and who knows what else).

Your prediction may play out if Rand Paul avoids his father's crazy positions and embraces the rational ones.
If he does that, I would support him.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I can't imagine she would play well in other Southern states at all -- not with her taking a series of hard-left positions like vetoing the voter id bill, throwing a hissyfit about gay marriage, proposing to suspend the constitution, covering up a gay sexual harassment scandal, etc. Heck, it sounds like she should be running California?!

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Ben! :)

I've been very much amazed at the positions Rand Paul has taken. When he got elected I suspected he would be Ron Paul only younger, but he really hasn't been. Many of his positions have been, but he's really be much more mainstream on a lot of the issues which stood in Paul's way.

And you're right, it's not Ron Paul's economics so much which flipped out the so-cons as it was everything else. And Rand seems to be bridging those gaps.

I think the left is indeed trying to undermine marriage because they want to break the link between religion/tradition and the state. That is the only way they can remake society, i.e. by breaking it down first so they can rebuild it. And what they've found (particularly because Pope John Paul smacked them down) is that the churches are the biggest obstacle to that. So anything they can do to weaken the significance of churches helps open the door for a more socialist America. And what would weaken churches more than taking away the appeal of church-based marriage?

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

I love this quote which sums up the wishing nature of liberal leftists:

"The left wishes socialized medicine would work, that the welfare state wouldn't bankrupt the nation, that we could borrow our way to prosperity, that members of the same sex could marry each other, that racial discrimination could end racial discrimination, that human fetuses aren't human, that women aren't women, that men aren't men, that palefarces were Indians, ad gnoseam."

I would add the left wishes selling guns to drug cartels will win the war on drugs and bring about gun control, that Obama really was a genius, that everyone could live the life of Julia, that they can rewrite history to their liking, that bureaucracies were efficient and free of corruption, that conservatives get the treatment they need for their own good (reeducation camps), etc..

I'm sure we could find dozens of examples of leftist wishful thinking.
If it wasn't for reality we would have our utopia now, dammit! LOL.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, That's a great quote and it captures modern liberalism 100%! It's too bad they refuse to see reality.

DUQ said...

On Rand, I do wonder if the two groups can coexist though? A huge part of the libertarian appeal is the legalization issue and the libertine stuff.

K said...

Andrew. Nice post.

So you don't think the left can find a pro-gay marriage clause in the Constitution?

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, That's a good question. I suspect Paul's supporters fall into two groups -- the "fun-time" libertarians and the ones who are more concerned with economic freedom/populism. Rand can probably get the economic ones but not the fun-time ones. That's my guess.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, that's probably true about Paul's supporters, because I've met both kinds. In '08, the only Paul fans I met (and I met A LOT of them) were the libertines who were only backing Ron because of pot legalization, gay "rights," and opposition to the Iraq War. I have no doubt that many, if not most, turned around that November and either didn't vote at all or voted for Obama. Much of my opposition to Paul goes back to my experiences with that group and their sheer obnoxiousness.

Then in the past few years, I have found some who are personally more socially conservative and who are mainly focused on economic liberty, which is good. Personally, I think they're the minority in the Paul camp, but they do lend him a bit more legitimacy than he would otherwise get.

AndrewPrice said...

K, Thanks!

Nope, not with this Supreme Court. If they can replace a conservative justice, then it would be easy. They would just say that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination unless there's a compelling state interest and since they don't see such an interest in stopping gays from being allowed to marry, it is now law. They might add that "gender" includes "sexual orientation" to make it sounds legal.

But the current court would reject that. They will say that there is no mention of sexual orientation in the Constitution and you can't create a protected class by defining the class through its conduct.

Even more interestingly, I would expect Thomas and Scalia to quote Obama's words back at him since he admits it can't be in the Constitution as it's a state's rights issue. That basically rules out any Supreme Court involvement.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I think you are right that the economic-types are the minority in the Paul camp, but they are what makes up the Tea Party. So I think Rand Paul is actually going for a broader base than Ron Paul ever had among libertarian-leaning conservatives.

And you're right, I've met a lot of the pro-pot, pro-gay marriage, anti-Iraq Paul people and they were entirely obnoxious. They really did confuse libertarianism with being libertines as they saw almost everything through a sexual prism, and they got rather nasty with anyone who disagreed.

DUQ said...

By the way, did anybody beside me notice how Andrew slipped in that Obama is only leading in MICHIGAN!! by 5%? This could turn into a rout!

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, And that's despite the big issue of the auto bailout. Imagine that.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Andrew, here's another quote that gets to the root of the problem of leftist/liberalism:

" is axiomatic in psychology that pathology results from one part of the mind being at war with another. An unwanted truth is denied, repressed, or projected, and the lacunae is unconsciously filled with the wish, the desire, the preferred state of reality."

Bingo. This is why leftists are immune (self innoculated) to logic and reason.
Most ain't even aware of it because it's heresy to question it let alone honestly examine themselves.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, Excellent quote, as usual!

I am not being facetious when I say this, but I have come to believe that modern liberalism is a mental condition rather than an ideology. And strangely, I have a lot more respect for socialists than liberals.

tryanmax said...

A break in the action (dinner was delayed). I hate to be a wet blanket but I am very disappointed in conservatives overall when it comes to the marriage issue. I'm hearing a lot of banter trying to make a logical defense of marriage as between a man and a woman, and most of the time they just fall apart. I'm not saying I have the logically sound defense, either, but there is no way we can defend against gay-marriage becoming a reality if we don't fully understand why we defend marriage as it is.

Like I said, I don't have the answer, and I am seriously meditating on it so that I may. Yes, it's true that liberals substitute feeling for thinking, but as Andrew points out, the younger generation is in favor of gay marriage and they can't all be libtards. Unless we can saliently defend marriage as between a man and a woman on sound logical grounds, there is no way they can be won over.

rlaWTX said...

Great lines, T-Rav & Andrew!!!
"If this announcement sets gay marriage back a generation or two, I will finally have something to thank Barack Obama for. And that, quite frankly, scares me."
"The national community will be assimilated INTO this blog!! Resistance is idiotic!"

Generally, the more of his own foot TOTUS stuffs into his mouth, the happier I am!

rlaWTX said...

did blogger munch on my comment or not...? the suspense is killing me... guess it did, so hit "publish" again -- and NO! now there's 2...

Fun, fun, fun!

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That is a difficult question. I'm not sure there is a defense except "I think it's immoral." And that's a loser. Personally, I don't care either way about the issue, but I do care about the freedoms involved. I don't think the government should have the power to impose a moral view on people who don't accept it.

I think conservatives would be better off removing marriage from the government's hands entirely and letting people who want to be married have to do it through a church. That would shift a lot of power back to the church and make them much more relevant. It would also get the government out of the business of weighing morality.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, Blogger has been finicky lately.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, Thanks! We aim to please with cool lines! :)

I get happier as well ever time ObOTUS puts his foot in his mouth, and this is a big one. He's spent the week already backpedaling and trying to explain and still seems to want to have it both ways. Good luck!

DUQ said...

Andrew, How would you construct a pro-(non-gay) marriage argument?

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, As I see it, there are three ways to approach it:

1. Morality
2. Biology
3. Societal impact.

Morality doesn't work because that's the argument which is slowly losing because people don't agree and the moral view of homosexuality has changed dramatically even in only a decade.

Biology doesn't work either because there's no biological reason to keep two people of the same sex from living together. You could try to get around this by arguing that gay parents are bad for children. But that's not really relevant to marriage, it's only an argument against gay adoption. It's also not proven because conservatives have failed to conduct studies along these lines.

That leaves societal effects. Here you have two types of argument: (1) promotion of homosexuality and (2) some other genuine problem. The first argument doesn't work because it relies on morality again. The second argument requires us to define both why marriage is important (presumably in relation to having children) and to explain why allowing gays to marry will negatively impact that.

I don't have an argument there. The best I can say is that (1) marriage discriminates against single people, (2) we only allow marriage because the benefit of marriage is that it leads to the creation of children, and (3) thus, allowing gay marriage is not justified. But I'm not sure that's a winner because people will argue that we should not be paying for people to have kids nor is it clear why a heterosexual marriage must be preferred compared to just any marriage of people who have kids.

That's the problem as I see it with winning the argument. That's why people go back to "it's immoral," but morality changes over time and right now the younger generations don't see homosexuality as immoral.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

I always knew Biden would get Obama in trouble. Talk about a complete idiot, lol.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, He did indeed do that thing! LOL!

Doc Whoa said...

Here's something I find interesting. This blew up on Obama, that's obvious. There are a lot of articles on the left attacking him. It got so bad that as you point out, other Democrats won't back him and he had to spend the day meeting with black religious leaders. Yet, the leftist MSM (like Politico) is running articles telling us how blacks are solidly onboard with Obama's stance. Do they not think anyone with a brain will spot that they are lying?

CrisD said...

Hi Andrew!
I think blogger ate my last comment. It was windy but the bottom line is:
Please just call gay marriage --garriage.
When polygamy is legal --call that polygamy.


AndrewPrice said...

Cris, I checked all the places blogger could have hidden it and it's not there, so it did eat it. Sorry.

"garriage" -- LOL!

Polygamy is probably next along with lowering the age of consent -- that's something the gay lobby has been working on for as long as I can remember.

I would say I doubt either of those could ever become law, but then I probably would have said the same thing about garriage twenty years ago.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, We're all stupid and believe what we read! LOL!

Seriously, that became the advice of marketing people decades ago -- just lie to people about reality and hopefully they will conform their views to what you tell them, and now you see that everywhere. Politicians do it, companies do it, everyone. Whenever you see people insisting something is true despite the evidence, then it's a pretty good guess that it's actually worse than anyone suspects.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I agree about polygamy being the next one down the pike, and I think after that, full legalization of incest relations will follow shortly. It's funny, I tried to explain to a friend of mine three or four years ago the logical progression here and he protested that there was no way that would happen and I was just committing the slippery slope fallacy--and yet, here we are.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, It's stunning how stupid people get about slippery slopes. When has the slippery slope ever not proven true? That is human nature. . . get an inch, start working on the mile (paraphrase).

The most classic example was Hitler, who kept saying he was finished if they would just meet his current demands. People fell for it time and again until Poland.

I think what people who try to reject the slippery slope argument are really doing is just being dishonest about what they are willing to accept. My guess is that your friend probably wouldn't be too concerned about polygamy either.

Also, eliminating the age of consent IS a big thing with the gay lobby, they've just learned to be very quiet about it.

Unknown said...

The whole "marriage" debate is part of the ongoing war on religion (and unlike the war on women, this one really exists). Gay marriage is just another step along the way toward defining deviancy down and removing religious objections from the forum.

First, the progressives and the liberals started talking about marriage as just a scrap of paper, serving no useful purpose but to enslave people to each other. That was many decades ago. Then came "no fault divorce." What God hath joined together, let man put asunder. As long as we both shall live, or until I find something better.

When marriage is reduced to just another civil contract, it has no further meaning. I don't give a fig what the civil authorities do about couples--same sex, opposite sex or multiple versions. That is up to the voters and the politicians. But when the government starts interfering in my religion, I will be manning the barricades with a whole lot of other people who believe the traditional opening of Christian weddings: "Marriage is a holy estate, instituted of God, and not to be entered into lightly. The Lord God in His goodness created us male and female, and by the gift of marriage founded human community in a joy that begins now and is brought to perfection in the life to come."

Civil unions are instituted of civil authorities, not God and not the churches and synagogues. Whatever my opinion of such unions may be, it is within the rights of the people to create them and define them. When it comes to marriage, nope. When civil unions and "marriage" have exactly the same rights, privileges, immunities and responsibilities, then the need for the word "marriage" serves only one purpose--getting religion out of the relationship between human beings and making marriage whatever the state says it is. Polygamy and polyandry are just logical extensions of the same reasoning--legal but not religious.

If same-sex couples want to find some non-scriptural, non-traditional church or synagogue which will perform the sham of a same-sex marriage, more power to them. There are plenty of those institutions around. That's not the issue. When an airhead like Obama "evolves" into a gay marriage advocate, I see it as just another step in the removal of religion from American life. When "marriage" and "civil union" mean the same thing, and have the same protections, it is only a matter of time before the government decides that pastors and rabbis who oppose gay marriage on scriptural and theological grounds will be punished for refusing to perform those marriages. Despite protestations to the contrary, this is already happening in Great Britain and Canada. Nebulous human rights trump religious freedom. Obama and the left have already shown their disdain for constitutional protections, and the First Amendment won't be any different.

Unknown said...

The only possible solution is to simply eliminate the word "marriage" for all public purposes. All unions, gay, straight, multiple, bestial, would have to meet the requirements of whatever perverse laws the states pass. But marriage itself should have no legal validity whatsoever. Leave that strictly to the religious institutions. That way, I will, however unwillingly, accept as "joined" any union the state has given legal status to. But I won't have to recognize a gay marriage because marriage is solely a religious institution which I can't force on those who believe differently and they can't enforce their beliefs on me.

As Andrew and others have correctly stated, we probably can't stop gay "marriage," but we can rein it in, redefine it, and get it out of the traditional churches and synagogues. True marriage must survive, even if we are forced to tolerate some pretty strange combinations to guarantee that.

Finally, I have absolutely no intention of listening to the fool in the White House telling me what Jesus would say about gay marriage. How the hell would he know? My reading of the Bible says Christ wouldn't have performed his first miracle at the wedding at Cana if the couple had been Matthew and Luke.

AndrewPrice said...


You are 100% right about the motives:

When civil unions and "marriage" have exactly the same rights, privileges, immunities and responsibilities, then the need for the word "marriage" serves only one purpose--getting religion out of the relationship between human beings and making marriage whatever the state says it is.

This is the real goal. If all this was about was getting the same legal rights, then civil unions would be enough, but it's not. And it's not because they want to force churches to accept them and the tool they want to use is the state.

The more I have thought about this over the years, the more I have concluded that the best solution is to take the government out of the marriage business entirely. Let the churches handle it and let individuals (and individual companies) decide if they want to recognize what the churches have done. . . leave the government out of it entirely.

As long as the state has the power to define marriage, the institution is in danger and the churches will grow weaker.

It may sound radical, but as with every other form of deregulation, it will make the institution stronger and give it more meaning. The government kills that which it touches, it does not make anything stronger.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
AndrewPrice said...

I don't even know if that was a joke or not, but way to miss every single point about pretty much everything. Nice goin' slick. Spam gets deleted.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, I just read your article about getting government out of defining marriage altogether and left a comment there.

In short, I agree with that idea and came to it independently some long before I found Commentarama. I abandoned it because it received such poor reception from my conservative friends, but now I think I shall take it back up again.

The only other thing that occurs to me is that there must be a reason why past cultures that were openly accepting of homosexuality still reserved the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. I'm not saying that in itself is a justification, rather a direction to look in.

tryanmax said...

RE: polygamy -- I heard on some show that CAIR is now supporting same-sex marriage because they see it as the camel's nose in the tent toward polygamy, which to my understanding is something akin to a religious obligation in some versions of Islam.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I saw that and just responded. I'd post the response here as well, but I'm very, very lazy. ;)

I think the thing to remember about marriage is that modern marriage is not the same as ancient marriage. Ancient marriage was about binding families through the creation of children. In fact, in many instances, the marriage needed to be consummated in the presence of witnesses, i.e. members of both families watched you get funky.

If the primary (near total) purpose of marriage was to generate children, then no one would have thought to extend it to gays.

Also, if I remember my history correctly, in places like Sparta, men and women generally lived separately and the homosexuality was considered a way of "bonding" troops.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, On CAIR, that wouldn't surprise me. The fundamentalist version of Islam does support polygamy

Unknown said...

tryanmax: We also covered the Muslim/polygamy thing awhile back. You had a couple of very funny comments: Mohammed Loves Gay Marriage?.

Unknown said...

Andrew: The Greeks, and later some of the Romans, regarded marriage very highly. Homosexuality was a term which wouldn't have made a lot of sense to them since sex only within marriage is much more a Judeo-Christian concept. Sex was a powerful thing, then as now. Sexual liaisons between and within the two sexes were considered normal. But marriage was carefully honored to preserve families and bloodlines, particularly among the upper classes.

The gossip about Julius Caesar was that he was every woman's husband and every man's wife. But when it came to marriage, Caesar's affair with Cleopatra and the dishonor it brought on his wife Calpurnia was one of the grounds for his assassination.

As Rome progressed down the road of depravity, marriage became something very similar to what we are seeing in the early stages here in America and throughout the West.

The Spartan wedding-night ceremony mimicked male/male sex since many of the Spartan soldiers had never been with a woman until the wedding night. The Athenian version was more older man/younger man, and even had some very strict rules about what kind of sex was allowed between them (most of today's practices were forbidden). Pedagogy, pedophilia and pederasty have similar linguistic roots.

Augustus Caesar felt that marriage had fallen into dishonor and disrepair and came up with marital rules that required all noble men to marry noble women and be completely faithful to them. He felt that the disrespect for the institution of marriage was causing Rome to decay. Of course, Augustus himself didn't apply his draconian rules to his own household. Gibbon attributed some of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire to the breakdown of marriage and the traditional family.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Dennis Prager offers a good argument against gay marriage here:
On Gay Marriage

In the article he mentions another goal of the left and gay activists: to validate their belief that there is no difference between man and woman.

There have been several good studies showing that the ideal environment for children is to have a loving father and mother.

One only has to see what has happened to 70% of blacks who were raised without a father and the consequences of it.

And no, that doesn't mean that every child without a father or mother will turn to a life of crime or grow up without the proper tools to deal with life, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that parents of the same sex (or single parents for that matter) simply are not ideal for raising children.

The differences between a mother and father are significant, and there is a purpose for those differences.

One of those purposes is raising children and fulfilling their needs.
Children need a mother and a father.
Gays, lesbians and transgendered folks can't provide that anymore than single parents can.

However, at least single parents aren't trying to destroy religion through the power of the State because churches won't accept what the activists desire which is to actually promote their lifestyle and validate it.

And to attempt to destroy the significant and meaningful differences between men and women.
Particularly in marriage.

Great comments. It is indeed a slippery slope as Roew V Wade was and is.

If traditional families are destroyed there will be devastating consequences (again, see what has happened to many blacks).

Of course, leftists don't care about that because most of those folks become democrats.
Even those who become criminals.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

And here's a good argument from Thomas Sowell on why we should oopose gay marriage:
Gay Marriage

I'll also add this quote, from Dennis Prager:

"I am arguing that Mitt Romney was right when he told Fox News last week that his campaign hires people "not based upon their ethnicity or their sexual preference or their gender, but upon their capability."

This is not only the right moral position; it is also the right political position. We have a much better chance to win young and independent voters whenever we show in word and deed that Democrats and others on the left are engaging in smears when they accuse conservatives and Republicans of being anti-woman, anti-minority or anti-gay.

Gay men and women who believe in the American Trinity — Liberty, In God We Trust and E Pluribus Unum — and who believe in small government, in American exceptionalism and in the need for America to be the strongest military and economic power in the world are one of us. And should be embraced as such."

Just because many on the right oppose gay marriage and/or consider it a sin doesn't mean we oppose gays because they are gay or refuse to interact with gay conservatives because they are gay.

Socons that may disagree should quit being hypocrites.
Because if they (and I realize it's a small fringe) ostracize gays because of the sin factor then they have to apply that same logic to anyone who has committed adultery, or essentially, anyone who has sinned.

The left will always call us anti-gays or homophobes (and anti-women, anti-immigration, etc.) but there's no reason to give them ammunition.

We can show the distinction between being anti-gay marriage and anti-gay people because gay marriage ain't just about gay people.

It affects our churches and our society and it's only part of a bigger agenda the left has to dismantle our families and our country as we know it (talked extensively about througout the comments).

tryanmax said...

USS Ben, I like Prager, he has some very thoughtful insight. However, I was listening to his show the other day when a caller proposed what Andrew does--that government get out of marriage altogether--and Prager rejected it out-of-hand.

You could tell it was a knee-jerk response on his part because he didn't have the usual cogency in his answer and he kinda did what other hosts do in a corner, he wouldn't let the other guy keep speaking. It was quite fascinating. No one is immune.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, That's generally what I've read as well, though I haven't read all that much about it honestly. And as you point out, it means there was no reason to have gay marriage because it just wouldn't have made sense for anyone to marry who could have children together. That's the difference today. Today marriage is meant as a form of love between a man and wife. In the past, it was more of a business arrangement.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, Well said that being opposed to gay marriage is not the same as being anti-gay, and I think conservatives need to get a lot better at expressing that. And I think the moral argument against marriage doesn't help that because when someone says "gay marriage is immoral so we shouldn't allow it," they are basically saying "I am anti-gay." That's why better arguments are needed.

I'm not sure the child argument works for a couple reasons. First, I'm not sure there is anything definitive about children being raised by gay couples verses children being raised by straight couple or divorced couple or unmarried couples. I understand intuitively that children need a mother and a father, but that needs to be proven through study and not just compared to single mothers.

Also, on the idea that the left is trying to destroy marriage, I do believe that, but it's not something you can sell to moderates, especially since conservatives seem to be the ones arguing for "less marriage."

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, I've looked at Pragers argument and it's flawed from the beginning to end.

First, to paraphrase, he's arguing that if we allow gays to marry, then we are arguing that heterosexual marriage is no longer important. That's flawed. That's like saying that because we sell toy guns, we no longer consider real guns to be important to our freedom. It is very possible to allow "attachments" to something like marriage without interfering with its primary purpose.

Then he steps over the real question by dismissing the moral argument about equality as a "feeling." Thus, he never addresses the main argument he needs to defeat.

Then he gives us a tautology: changing marriage will change marriage, which will result in a change to marriage, which is bad because marriage should not change.

Then he finishes with opinion as fact: oh hey, there are these studies that claim gay marriage is ok, but I don't believe them. Ergo, they are wrong.

His argument fails for each of these reason.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, Sowell's argument is better, but again he is basically just saying, "this isn't how we've done it". He does combine this with it's not discrimination because it's based on behavior and not something inherent in the person, but that doesn't really help because it sidesteps the question of "why" we shouldn't allow this behavior.

In effect, I agree with him, but I know his argument is just preaching to the choir.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I'm not surprised. It's an idea which takes a lot of thought to get your head around and see that the negative consequences aren't so bad.

Unknown said...

Having lived much of my life right in the middle of the home of gay liberation, gay rights and now gay marriage activism, I might have a little insight into what the gay community actually believes (as opposed to the activists and the heterosexual, anti-religion factions). And I must point out that this is purely anecdotal. Of my friends who are gay, all support same-sex unions, but only one tepidly supported gay marriage. Most of them resented others telling them what they should believe. Some were Christians, some were agnostic/atheist, and one was Catholic. I didn't know any who were evangelical or fundamentalist, but frankly my circle of friends doesn't include a lot of heterosexual evangelicals either. But they all agreed on one thing, and that was that "marriage" was their own damned business, and they didn't want government interfering.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, It's ironic that conservatives are losing the gay vote because the conservative philosophy of "leave me alone" should be quite attractive to gays. I think the problem is the zeal of many social conservatives to demand government-imposed morality.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Andrew and Tryanmax:

I believe that Prager has some other articles that get into the wackdemic studies which are skewed to get the results they are looking for.

We have all seen studies like that (conservatives are stupid, conservatives have less compassion, there id no difference between the sexes, etc.).

Unfortunately, it's very time consuming to sort through all the studies to find the ones that are objective, although many on it's face are obviously idiotic (like the ones I mentioned above).

Any objective studies on the effects of two gay men or two gay women (or transgendered) raising children will take at least 10-20 years, when or if it's ever done.

I agree with Prager that the State should endorse traditional marriage because it is the best way given the information we have thus far, for children.

Again, I'm speaking in generalities here.

If the state says do whatever you want then leftists win in murdering the meaning of another word.
Then the word marriage becomes whatever people want it to mean.

Sowell gets into that more extensively. Why is that important? Because it's the slippery slope again. We won't see an immediate negative consequences but it will happen within a generation.

I concur that it will most likely happen but it's incumbant on those of us who don't wanna get on that slippery slope (or straight off the cliff) to at least try to stop it.

As Sowell points out, all laws are based on morality so where do we draw the line and make a stand? Is it worth the effort in the case of marriage?

I believe it is. The state, by endorsing traditional marriage isn't imposing it or the morality of it on anyone.
Gays can still have civil unions.

Essentially, the state is represents the American people.
Not always is it representative in the short run but in the long run it is for most Americans.

Apathetic Americans may one day disagree, but that's the price of apathy.

The evidence we have thus far (and it's quite vast) shows that the healthiest environment for children is a mother and a father.

I believe further, objective studies will support the perennial wisdom of the sanctity of marriage as intended to be the best or ideal way for families to grow.

Having read Prager for years that's where he's coming from (again, he's written several articles on this that get more specific).

Unfortunately, some gays will get their feeling hurt if we don't allow them to redefine marriage.
But if we keep allowing our words and our language to be murdered than it becomes meaningless.

I don't think I hafta get into what the consequences of that will be.
I think Roe V Wade and Brown V the board of education are good examples of the consequences of what happens when words (and our Constitution) mean whatever those who wield power want it to mean.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

On getting the state out of marriage I get what your saying.
However, where do we draw the line, or are you saying wherever people and the wacky cults want it to be?

I realize these groups are marginal, but it can be quite enticing for young folks to join say the church of polygamy that endorses polygamy marriage, or whatever.

I mean, stuff like that may be marginal now but I can see movements like that growing (and for different reasons) if we allow it.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, The problem is that while I agree with you, that argument is still a loser. It offers nothing to anyone who doesn't already believe gay marriage is bad. And there aren't enough of those people left to win on the issue.

On the question of removing marriage from the state, you have fallen into a trap. You have bought into the idea that the government defines morality. And in buying into that, you are ceding to the government the power to impose a morality on the public. And that has created the tools (government fiat) which have let the left redefine our culture away from conservative ideas over the public's objections. By giving liberals the power to impose morality through the government rather than having to win the public over with their ideas, we are giving them the very tools they need to change America. Take those tools away their power will collapse.

And the longer we let liberals have this power, the easier it will be for them to "murder" these words by redefining them by government fiat.

The government should be little more than a referee. We should not look to the government to give something meaning. The meaning should come from the public. And taking away the power of the government to regulate will not eliminate something's meaning, it just means the government can't define it. That's how almost all of morality works, in fact. The government doesn't tell you which religions are right or wrong, it doesn't tell you how to treat your friends or family, or if you should pray or work on Sunday or give gifts, etc. There is no reason marriage needs to be an exception to this.

Also, the idea that laws are based on morality is a myth. When law was first made, it was originally based on morality because there was a blending of church and state. But over the last 2,000 years, the morality has been taken out of the law and the laws which only sought to impose morality were repealed. The law today is based almost entirely on the orderly regulation of society and preventing disruption. Morality is considered by the law to be a matter for public opinion.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, Also in terms of drawing the line, it depends. If they are hurting a child or committing a crime, then the law should step in. But otherwise, it adds nothing.

If no one needs to recognize a marriage they don't agree with, then why would we need the government to step in to make it official? For example, if two gays live together and call themselves married, but no church or school or company is forced by law to recognize this as a marriage, what do you actually gain from having the government step in and say "you are not officially married"? There is no practical difference made by adding this last step, and the price of adding that last step is to leave in place the power for liberals to one day force a new definition of marriage upon you.

It's a bad trade off.

Individualist said...

I am perplexed by this issue because to my mind defining lasting committments between gay people as a "marraige" is detrimental to that community and to society as a whole.

Marraige is and always will be about the propigation of the species. The reason for the social convention is so that children are raised by their biological mothers and fathers and society can track one's family ties. People should know who their cousins are even if only to define who they should not "date". Tearing done this social convention or changing it will have very bad unintended consequences in my view but to a certain extant the extended family is being diminished by other liberal ideas as well so what can you do.

As regards to gay people I go back to an article I read on a plane in Scientific American and the circumstance of one of my friends. The article was about the gene for gay animals. It said that only animals with this identified gene could express themselves as homosexually. Without the gene the animal is ALWAYS heterosexual but animals with the gene are as likely to express themselves as heterosexual as homosexual.

My freind's father had issues becasue he was gay. He married her mom in order to have a "normal" life, could not handle it and became an alcoholic. I believe even if gay marraige is allowed many gay people will still do this. We tend to think of homosexuality as a ban on hetereosexula activity as if sex with the opposite gender is impossible. This is not so. The difference is that one sexual activity can end up in a child and the other cannot.

It is simple mathematics that somehow over the course of generations gay people had to have been procreating because if you calcuate a popuylation of six billion assume half have the gene and half don't. Assume half with the gene will be only homosexual then in four to eight generation you have less than a millionn people with the gene. It is the exponentiality that is the major factor.

I have and always will maintain that a committment between homosexuals which I do beleive should be recognized by the state should be termed a civil union. Furthermore being in this civil union should not proclude these individuals from entering into a marraige with a member of the opposite gender. Parentage being the most important item.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Yes, I concur about the state, particularly since there are so many who have leftist ideas and have no problem using coercion and force to enforce those twisted ideas.

However, I never thought that govt. defines morality since morality, like liberty and truth does not come from man and for good reason.

I meant govt. endorsement not enforcement, but I do agree that the power hungry would abuse that.

Thanks for clarifying in your second response. That makes sense to me and that would work, as long as the govt didn't try to prosecute private businesses, private schools, churches, etc. for discrimination.

Discrimination (like profiling) is another word that got ruined. Because it can be used in a good way, and private organizations should have the right to discriminate to avoid having someone elses values imposed on them.

As for morality and law I was speaking in general terms. Certainly most laws were passed because of a sense of right and wrong (It's wrong to murder, ergo let's make it against the law) so morality, as you mentioned, was in play although it doesn't define the laws.

Justice is another thing that's not given by man, and true justice is always moral and right, even if we don't always get it right.

I hope I clarified what I meant. Of course, I could still be wrong on the particulars. I'm not very good at expressing self evident truth's at times. :^)

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Oh, and thanks Andrew for the honest critique because it makes me think of better ways to express myself and think about what you said. And reevaluate when I'm wrong (and when I say things wrongly). :^)

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, You're welcome. We're all friends even when we disagree! :)

And I don't think you and I disagree all that much in any event.

To me, the biggest issue is that by giving the government power to decide moral issues, you end up empowering the left to impose things they could not otherwise get in society. If we took marriage away from the government, sure anyone could claim they are married, but no one would need to recognize it. And unless they can win the public over, they will never get what they want. By comparison, if they could use the government, then they could force it on everyone whether the public wants it or not.

Thus, yes, absolutely there could be NO laws which prohibit discrimination based on moral issues because otherwise the government would be in the business again of imposing morality. Basically, these issues should be up to people and not government. So anyone would be free to ignore anyone else's claim of marriage without legal punishment -- though they would presumably face social punishment if the public felt certain things should be recognized. (i.e. the power of shame)

You are right that morality was in play when the laws were first made. There wasn't much difference between church and state when most of these laws got their start. But over time (particularly in the last 200 years), that has changed and the laws which rely on morality only as a basis have pretty much been repealed. That why things like adultery are no long punished. Instead, law is now mainly utilitarian in the sense that it's based on preventing disruption to the smooth functioning of society. This is both good and bad. But I think the key to making sure it stays good and doesn't become bad is to keep the government as small as possible.

And don't worry Ben, you're very good at expressing what you mean! :)

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, But let me play Devil's Advocate and ask this: if we're going to recognize gay relationships at all, what does it matter if we give them a different name than marriage? How does it really change anything to call one "marriage" and call the other "civil unions"?

On homosexuality, I'm pretty certain it is in the genes. That's why I think it will be eradicated one day. Once people can spot the gene, parents will begin aborting those children for reasons I discuss at the link. This would effectively eliminate gays or at least shrink the population to a truly minimal number. I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, but I think it will happen because it will make sense to parents -- especially once genetic-manipulation becomes more common.

Individualist said...


The number one reason is Children. IF a woman cheats on her husband and gets pregnant by another man the husband is considered the father of the child since he was married to the woman at the time of birth.

We can make assumptions that gay men won't sire children with women because they are "gay" but the fact of the matter is that this is unlikely but not impossible. What "rights" do you assign the same sex spouse of a man who sires a child with a woman, what rights to a same sex spouse of a woman who gets pregnant.

I think it matters greatly whether we call it a civil union (I think the term pair bond has a better conatation) or a marraige because we assume that marraige assigns the same rights to all who are married. Yet because of gender differences and the biological purpose of the two sexes one cannot assign the "same" rights.

To my mind the distinction is so important that we need to classify these as two separate things.

Further what is an ideal end relationship for a gay person. One that grants an avenue to a "normal" life as this woman's father wanted. for heterosexuals it is easy, Marraige. For a gay persoin this is complicated but I son't think impossible.

I think that to the extent that a gay person should want to have children they should form a civil union with a mate. Seek out a like bonded pair of the opposite sex and each man marry the woman of the other group. In this way the biological nature of their sexual desires (homosexuality) is kept but the child will be born to a couple knowing who its mother and father is and raised by those individuals who are given presumptive rights to do so by society.

I dunno the idea is out there but it is what I think e3ven if it is wrong...

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, But let me continue to play Devil's Advocate with two points.

1. Parental rights are not defined by marriage, they are defined by being the biological mother or father. And how would assigning child rights in a gay marriage be any different than assigning rights in a heterosexual marriage between people who previously had kids? If you can do that, then what would be the problem with doing it for gays?

2. How does also granting gays the status of married affect the status of heterosexual married couples? They would still have all the same rights and the law would treat them and their children the same as always. The only difference is that now gays get some coverage, which really doesn't impact the heterosexual couples.

Individualist said...


It is not how it affects heterosexual couples, it is how it affects society as a whole.

I guess I misread the article but it has always been my understanding that a man still retains rights to a child born of his wife. That is my misunderstanding.

However I still think it matters in that one can't treat the relationships in the same way. If a women gets pregant by another man the relationship between the two is different. When that man assigns his putative rights as a father barring the incident of rape we assume there is some hold that he has.

Take a lesbian couple however and the dynamic is completely different. Sure the man is the "father" but do his rights supercede the rights of the mother's partner. The obvious assumption is the womans partner holds more sway over her heart than the "father", yet he is the father of the child. How do you adjudicate that. How can you possibly have the same exact standard in this case as the other.

It is not that I argue that one side should have more or less rights. I argue that the situations is so different that one woluld have to have different rules. The only analogy I can think of is forcing players in a baseball game to abide by the decisions of a referee followig the rules for Cricket. The games are similar but not the same.

To my mind you have to have a distinction between the two not because one (homosexual or heterosexual)is better than another but because they are just different.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, The problem is that none of that justifies a ban on gay marriage. It just means you need a slightly more complex breakdown of rights in a gay marriage if you compare it to “ideal marriage” -- two people who have never been married before who then have children together. But that’s an artificial definition of marriage. Most modern marriages now involve people who have kids already before they are married. And the rules for those people are identical to the rules you would need for gays. So the baseball-cricket analogy doesn’t hold because you already have two sets of rule which govern marriage.

So how does it affect society as a whole? I honestly don’t see that from a legal perspective. I just see it from a moral perspective and that argument won’t win.

Individualist said...


What I am saying is not that I would like to "ban" gay marraige. I am saying that marraige between two people can't exist.

The reason for an ideal is to have something to strive for. Yes, the ideal is in many cases today not followed but that does not mean the ideal should them be abandoned.

The ideal is that a child should be raisded by the biological mother and biological father together.

I see many similarities between a gay bond pairing and a marraige. Enough that I understand the inclination to equate them. However I see these ideals as the reason to make that distinctin. The primary one being that a bonding between a gay couple should not be a reason to exclude a marraige. I understand the reason for limiting one to one marraige but I don't have a problem with a gay individual retaining his bond to another gay individual but still being able to marry a woman especially if that woman is impregnated with his child. By labeling them both marraiges you cannot make this distinction.

But agian I don't expect to convicne you. I un derstand the idea is way out past the orbit of Neptune. Nonetheless I still agree with it.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, If you don't want to believe a gay marriage is a real marriage, you can believe that, but the government can still force you to pretend it is a real marriage for legal purposes. That's the problem, and that's why the question came up about finding a useable argument against gay marriage.

Individualist said...


I guess I am unclear in my point. For a hetero sexual young person we tell them to strive to find someone special, get married and have children.

For a gay young person what should we tell them. I think that they should find someone special and enter into a bonded pairing that the state should legally recognise for hospital rights what have you. But then they should find a lesbian couple and enter into two marrainges one man to one woman each with the intent of procreating and raising the children together.

The state will need to acknowledge both types of relationships in order to allow people to enjoyu tax benefits, combine assets, leave monies to their estates, decide whose parental rights are superior in the unfortunate event of divorce and all those other things that force the government into marraige.

In order to allow this we'd have to acknowledge a difference between a same sex paring and an opposite sex pairing. Since the opposite sex marraige is more important (it allows for the world to be peopled as Shakespeare would say) then this is the paring that deserves this term.

The labels are not as important as the distinction that one does not exclude the other and that there are differences in how each one is handled. But again ev eryone will think this "crazy".

I agree with this because it aids a fix in a "defect" among homosexuals. That being that they are inclined not to mate. This would be societies way of providing an acceptable avenue whereby they could have children without having to run away form their families and become drunkards.

AndrewPrice said...

Ok, now I get your point. I see what you are tying to achieve and it's an interesting solution. I suspect, however, that gays will tell you they don't want heterosexual marriages and conservatives will tell you this allows polygamy. So both would object.

If you wanted this, the best solution would again be to just get the government out of the marriage business. Then the people who wanted this could set it up themselves and no one else would need to worry about it because they could just ignore it as they could any other marriage they don't like. That way everyone gets what they want, unless the goal is to force others to accept them.

Post a Comment