Skip to main content

I frequently read conservative news outlets in an effort (albeit hopeless these days) to understand both sides of the story.  Typically I find little in the way of substance.  But I was encouraged to see a conservative defense of same-sex marriage in a thread on one of the most conservative sites in my state (included below).  Hopefully this is a sign of things to come:

Tommy Valentine:
Both of those candidates support homosexual marriage. For that reason they should not be supported, regardless of their personal sexuality - I can't speak for Forbes, but I would not support a straight candidate who supported homosexual marriage either. It is contrary to Republican principles.

JReynolds79:
And what principle is that? Limited government? Acknowledging that protecting the minority voice or opinion is a critical component of liberalism (in its traditional sense)? Or maybe the principle of "personal freedom"? Oh wait...

Tommy Valentine:
Not injecting the government into an institution it didn't create? And not forcing the government to sanction romance in which it has no legitimate interest? Gay marriage is big government at its finest.

JReynolds79:
Wow, I don't know where to begin. This is an utterly misguided bastardization of liberalism, but here goes...

First, "injecting government into an institution it didn't create." Implicit within this assertion is some contrived narrative that Christianity "created" the concept of marriage. Google any civilization that existed before Christianity (and yes, there were advanced civilizations long before Christianity was invented).

Second, the government acknowledges marriage as a legally enforceable contract whereby both parties have rights. I guess we could remove it in its entirety, but you do realize that would result in a myriad of problems in terms of wills, divorce law, adoption law, and a litany of other areas that relate to the family unit. But this is probably where you will contend that homosexual families are perverse or something asinine like that.

Third, "sanction romance." Seriously? I'm hoping this is a sick joke. Why should the government have any authority over the romantic life of two consenting adults? And don't give me some BS line about it being a "crime against nature." Only you and Ken Cuccinelli actually believe that legislation is anything other than a thinly veiled attempt to legislate morality.

Fourth, "big government at its finest"? Hardly. Gay marriage merely affords the same legal rights to homosexual couples that heterosexual couples already enjoy.

And don't forget about that pesky little thing known as the equal protection clause-but that probably doesn't resonate with your flawed conception of "conservatism" either.

Tommy Valentine:
When did I say Christianity created marriage? Marriage has existed from the beginning of man, before any organized religion.

Government is not involved in marriage just to enforce contracts. Government is not involved in marriage because it's interested in the love between two consenting adults. If that were the case, by all means, get the government out of the bedroom. But government is involved in marriage because it is the relationship that unites a man and a woman as husband and wife who are then equipped to raise any children that union may produce. This is based on the anthropological reality that men and women are distinct and complementary; based on the biological fact that reproduction requires a man and a woman; and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

Since gay marriages cannot produce children, all that government does by recognizing them is recognizing their romance. Why should the government have any authority over the romantic life of two consenting adults? It shouldn't. So why do you want the government to recognize it if it has no interest in it?

Allowing the government to redefine an institution it did not create is a massive expansion of government power.

The equal protection clause does not apply, because homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are not equal. That is a fact, not my belief. To say that they are equal is to deny reality; you're only fooling yourself. I'm all for marriage equality. I'm not for false equality.

JReynolds79:
While eloquent, your argument essentially states that "homosexuality is not natural"-which is laughable. I could cite various species that have been found to engage in homosexual activity. I could also cite thousands upon thousands of legitimate, scientific studies indicating that homosexuality is biological.

Or I could highlight that your line of thinking would effectively prohibit sterile men or women from enjoying "marriage".

But it's more fun analyzing your completely self-contradictory statements. "But government is involved in marriage because it is the relationship that unites a man and a woman as husband and wife who are then equipped to raise any children that union may produce" What if they aren't equipped? What if it's a gasp one-night stand between two people completely un-equipped to parent or raise a family? Maybe we should legislate when and where you can have sex too?

Now, if you're asserting that the government has a vested interest in encouraging the nuclear family unit, that's a distinctly different conversation. But everyone knows that is not your point as it would undermine your entire argument. A family is a family. The only "big government" maneuver currently being promulgated is coming from the Republican camp when it attempts to define what a "family" is unilaterally - which is precisely what you are doing.

Tommy Valentine:
Where did I make a claim about whether homosexuality is natural? That's an enormous red herring you're presenting, as is "Maybe we should legislate when and where you can have sex too?"

 On sterile couples - any heterosexual couple capable of consummating their marriage is inherently capable of bearing and raising a child. This includes "infertile" couples. A couple that was not capable of the marital act is not capable of marriage. Sexual intercourse is still inclined towards bodily union and reproduction whether conception occurs or not and whether the couple is seeking conception or not. Which is why the law has always recognized "infertile" marriages. The costs of SSM are still being counted and will be counted for as long as it exists, but some of those already identified are corrosion of public perception of the purpose of marriage and the dismantling of monogamy. As for the benefits of "infertile" marriages - I keep putting it in quotations because many couples believed to be infertile end up conceiving children, but regardless, determining fertility would be an unjust invasion of privacy, as I'm sure you would agree. Even if they never have children, their marriages do not corrode the marriage culture. Not recognizing infertile marriages would violate the principle of equality, because they are equal to fertile marriages, just varying in degree.

Yes, I am asserting that the government has a vested interest in encouraging the nuclear family unit. That's the basis on my argument. Children do best with a married mother and father. Period. A homosexual marriage with children inherently deprives the children of either a mother or a father. I don't see how I or the GOP is trying to "define" family - it's already defined, and leftists are trying to redefine it.

JayD:
"A couple that was not capable of the marital act is not capable of marriage." Saaaay what??

I don't recall being asked if I was capable of copulation when obtaining our marriage license. Is that something new?

Tommy Valentine:
"determining fertility would be an unjust invasion of privacy, as I'm sure you would agree."

JayD:
You said 'a couple not capable of the marital act is not capable of marriage. The 'marital act' is known as sexual intercourse or copulation.

So I repeat, I was not asked about my ability to copulate on the marriage license. And yet I was permitted to marry.

Ergo, whether/not I can complete the 'marital act' is inconsequential to whether/not I have a right to marry.

Tommy Valentine:
To ask this question would be an invasion of privacy, and it applies to almost no one.

JayD:
I agree it's an invasion of privacy, so why is it your litmus test for determining whose marriage is recognized by the state?

Tommy Valentine:
It's not, because the state must assume that all heterosexual couples are capable of intercourse.

JayD:
The state has no compelling interest in procreation - we aren't China. In this country, the intention of marriage is to obligate participants to take care of offspring, dependents, or any other obligations created by the union ... so the State doesn't have to ... and to make possible the distribution of tax, social security, inheritance, etc.

Tommy Valentine:
Here's the best summary - because same-sex unions can't produce children, the government has no legitimate interest in recognizing them.

JayD:
So, the government has a compelling interest in recognizing children that do not exist??

Tommy Valentine:
Not understanding what you're saying.

JayD:
Ditto

Tommy Valentine:
If you are of good will and genuinely interested in good public policy, I encourage you to read "What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense" by Ryan T. Anderson, Sherif Girgis, and Prof. Robert George of Princeton.

JayD:
I read Anderson's work on the Heritage site. His positions are framed from personal biblical views, as are Robert George's. And I will say again, if we are to justly deny equality to any group, it must be founded in something other than "my bible says ...".

I agree with Anderson; marriage does play an important role in civil society because it encourages exclusivity and permanence. So if exclusivity and permanence are good for society ... why the hard fight to limit access?

The free choice of a spouse is a fundamental right. If the state legislatures can't see this, then the courts will have to come in (again) and correct the wrong.

JReynolds79:
If I wanted the Catholic position on gay marriage, I would have picked up the Catechism (which I've read in its entirety-gotta love Catholic schooling). But if I remember correctly, the last time the Church was granted political authority it perpetrated violent behavior far beyond the scope of anything we see today - Middle East included. But I digress...

As for the red herrings, they're largely a byproduct of your completely disjointed logic. I know I can't persuade you anymore than I could any other hard-line ideologue. But the court of public opinion does not fall in your favor, regardless of what contrived statistics you might want to throw out.

And "tradition" is never a cogent, logical justification-as is assumed in your statement that family is "already defined". But you're probably too young to remember when family was "defined" as only two people of the same race. Or two people of the same social class. Or whatever other arbitrary lines have been drawn in the past to define "family."

Tommy Valentine:
When losing an argument, do not address the points being made; instead, result to mischaracterization, straw men, name-calling, etc.

JReynolds79:
And when arguing an indefensible position, rely on confirmation and self-selection bias to rationalize your utterly intolerable worldview.

Midwestconservative:
"intolerable" nice tolerance there bub.

Tommy Valentine:
And I'm the ideologue?

JReynolds79:
Yes, in fact you are...I'm glad we're in agreement on something.

Tommy Valentine:
Funny. Your narrow-mindedness is quite striking.

JReynolds79:
Yep, ignorance is bliss what can I say?

Maybe one day I'll possess your intellectual rigor and I can follow in the footsteps of guys like you, Ken Cuccinelli, et al. I can't imagine a more fulfilling life.

Tommy Valentine:
You are not a serious person. Come back when you are genuinely interested in having a serious discussion.

JReynolds79:
"Serious" went the way of the dodo bird when this conversation didn't demand a logically coherent platform or a holistic political theory. If you don't already see that, you never will.
Have fun hurting the Republican cause though. After all, it's better to lose a purist. Right?

Tommy Valentine:
I presented you with an argument that was reasoned, articulate, and "eloquent", to quote you. Your responses were the opposite. Instead, you're telling me that what you perceive to be my entire worldview is wrong. That's not an argument.

JerseyRed:
Then let's just get government out of marriage all together. Picking and choosing which marriages is nothing more than government sanctioned discrimination.

http://bearingdrift.com/...

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Another Problem With His Position (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MMoody1776, avsp, Munchkn, Matt Z

    His position requires that post-menopausal women be denied the right to marry.  Post-menopausal women do not even inherently have the capability to bear a child.

    •  One of Many (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      librarisingnsf, avsp, Munchkn, Matt Z

      I agree.  His argument involves a number of inconsistencies.  I was pleasantly surprised to see another Republican taking him to task for it though.  

      I think this conversation hits on how logically incoherent the current Republican platform truly is-something that should be (and in many ways is) highlighted by Democratic candidates.

      •  Years ago, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

          I used to be that republican, trying to talk reason to the rest. Maybe he will have better luck than I did, after too many of those time of circular arguments, I gave up and left the party, and wouldn't go back even if they did a 180 now. The witch-hunters have been in control too long for the party to ever be redeemed.  

        "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." T. Roosevelt

        by Lowgun on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 01:33:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    librarisingnsf, MMoody1776, avsp, Matt Z

    I've known of a few pro-marriage equality Republicans, like some of the Bush and McCain clan, but never seen it among the rabble before, particularly in such a well argued fashion. I guess there is hope!

    I've always felt that marriage equality was fundamentally a 'conservative' value, and I mean that in the good "apple pie" sense.

    For years, the romantic vision of America was a place where people put a stake in the ground, and tried to stamp some permanence around them - a permanence which includes (but does't mandate) choosing a life partner, picking a profession, working hard, helping to bring about the next generation (by mentoring at work, and raising good kids at home), and then retiring with honor.

    And bizarrely, we've passed all these amendments actively denying all these things to gay folks. Never made a damned bit of sense to me!

    Rick Perry - the greatest scientist since Galileo!

    by Bobs Telecaster on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 10:59:09 AM PST

    •  Another Example-Rob Portman (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bobs Telecaster, avsp

      He voted in favor of DOMA, but changed his perspective after his son opened-up to him about his sexuality.  After a lot of personal reflection, Senator Portman did the right thing and came out in favor of same-sex marriage for the very reasons you're alluding to.  

      I think we're on the precipice of breaking through on this issue.  If we can find a popular, moderate Republican to carry the message on the other side of the aisle, we might be able to settle this once and for all.

  •  Government Not Religion Created Marriage, (6+ / 0-)

    so government can define it any way it wants.

    That's why a preacher can only pronounce you married "by the authority vested in me by the state" and no preacher can issue a divorce, only the state can do that.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 11:03:26 AM PST

  •  And that (0+ / 0-)

     Was one of the key reason, the republican party left me. Even when I still thought of myself as strictly hetero, back in my republican days, I was never concerned that others may not be, and just couldn't understand the fear of those who are different.  What Bob and Sue, John and Fred, and Jane and Jill do with each other, never saw how that affected me, or how it could diminish my marriage.  

    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." T. Roosevelt

    by Lowgun on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 01:29:18 PM PST

  •  Non consummation (0+ / 0-)

    In England and Wales, at least, a marriage can be nullified if it is not consummated.

    When the House of Lords was recently debating letting people of the same sex marry, the issue was raised by Baroness Butler-Sloss (a retired judge who specialised in family law).

    The comment below follows on from discussion of an amendment the Baroness moved about the unfairness of same sex couples not being able to petition for divorce on the fact of adultery, as an opposite sex couple could. The quote below is from Lords Hansard 19 June 2013, column 377

    Amendment 41, which looks at the inequality in the matrimonial law of voidable marriages in this Bill, raises the issue of non-consummation. In current nullity law there are two grounds of voidable marriages: inability and wilful refusal to consummate the marriage. A nullity suit on either of these grounds is nowadays unusual. However, the question of inequality and possible injustice arising from the difference in two types of marriage raises the same point as my comments on adultery. If this Government are, as they should be, strong enough to provide a revised definition of consummation and non-consummation, they should deal with voidable marriages as well as adultery. This is not a homophobic point. On the contrary; this is an injustice to innocent partners in a same-sex marriage, who do not have the same rights as innocent partners in an opposite-sex marriage and do not have the specific right to divorce a faithless same-sex partner. I beg to move.
    The argument did not get anywhere in Parliament, but may be somewhat related to one of the points being argued about by the anti-equal marriage conservative blogger quoted in the diary.

    There is no man alive who is sufficiently good to rule the life of the man next door to him. Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris, M.P.

    by Gary J on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 03:01:40 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site