The Bush twins may be attending a gay wedding. I've long suspected that opposing gay marriage is a losing fight. Forget the rights or wrongs of it--the train is moving down the track and it's not clear to me that there's any way of stopping it.
Part of the reason for this is that the best arguments against gay marriage are explicitly religious. Another reason is that the equality aspect of the pro-gay marriage arguments are fairly powerful (at least on their face). But the biggest reason is this: Rising generations are going to inhabit radically different positions of gay marriage than their parents and grandparents did. Opposition to gay marriage has crested, and is only going to erode over time as Gen-Y begins filling the demographic ocean.
As far as I can tell, the question conservatives should be asking themselves isn't "Can gay marriage be stopped?" The real question is: Are religious groups that oppose gay marriage going to be allowed to keep doing so 20 years from now?
It seems possible that down the road the Catholic church is going to have its tax-exempt status put in jeopardy because they'll refuse to marry people of the same sex.
If I were a conservative committed to defending traditional marriage, I wouldn't be caught up in the fight against gay marriage--I'd be quitely setting up a defensive perimeter so that down the line religious groups won't be compelled to buy into gay marraige by a broader secular society which will almost certainly see it as the norm.
12 hours ago
19 comments:
Boy, an institution that has remained between a man and a woman for thousands of years is now doomed because younger people don't like it? Forgive me Mr. Last but pre-emptive surrender does not work. Without judicial fiat same-sex marriage would have no purchase. If men and women are not different with regard to procreation among other things and the institutions of society can not reflect those differences then there is no percentage in being a conservative at all. Young people have a host of views that diverge from older people from the fact that they have less experience in life. Time, and a principled exposition of why radical change in the nature of marriage is bad, can alter expectations of the sort you now cave to. Worse, to glean all this from the Bush twins being invited to such a ceremony by a Bush-hating hairdresser (could there be a bigger stereotype?) makes your new site seem like an Onion parody. I've book marked it anyway as I was delighted to learn of it.
I am not opposed to Gay Marriage. I think marriage's emphasis on commitment and monogomy represent universal family values that should be supported regardless of sexuality or religiosity. The only problem with the issue is that change is being dictated through the Courts, as opposed to by the people.
I firmly believe that President Bush does not have a personal problem with gays marryiage. I think the compassionate aspects of Christianity hold far more sway over him than random passages preaching division and hate. I also believe that he feels that the courts have once again become dicttorial in their pronouncements. If the court determines something to be unconstitutional, the only recourse available is to change the Constitution to the contrary. It is the only recourse against passively allowing the courts to overstep their bounds and allow the people's representatives to have a say.
Society is changing to fast to stop it anyways. When I first discovered my brother was gay, a point I guess I should have disclosed earlier, my biggest concern was how I was going to explain him to the children I would eventually have. I now realize that society will probably take care of that for me, a society which will not consider it a big deal. My love and concern for my brother will be how my children relate to someone who is gay. Children are not born to hate. Race was once a big deal, now it is only a big deal to those who make it a big deal. The same will be true in regards to sexuality.
Society will accept that sexuality really is not one's choice. Whether that is due to biology or society's and life's effects on a developing psyche, will be left for scientist to answer. But how one lives the life they have been given, as opposed to who they are, is the concern society should weigh in on.
Your gay marriage points are well taken, although I think it's a bit of a stretch making the argument about churches losing tax-exempt status if they don't marry gays. I don't have any wonderfully-sourced examples, but it seems that religious groups are given free reign to restrict who they will marry according to their religious teachings and beliefs. Restrictive marriage rules have led to divisions amongst religious groups, allowing liberal sects to arise alongside orthodox sects. Isn't that how the Church of England got started, some King getting fed up with Papal restrictions on divorce. It's been too long since Western Civ.
One more point: shouldn't the Catholic Church be more worried about it's recent political pronouncements against pro-choice Catholic politicians? Doesn't advocacy of specific candidates threaten their tax-exempt status?
I kind of doubt that the Catholic Church will change it's position so that it can continue to enjoy a tax-exempt status.....
Before we start generalising about the next generation let's not forget the well known phenomenon that by and large people tend to get more conservative as they get older. And there are liberal arguments against gay marriage ( see http://thepublicinterest.com/ ) The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage.
For me, the troublesome aspect of expanding the tradtional definition of marriage to include gay couples is this: it opens the door to every other possible type of "marriage" imaginable, including polygamy and "line" marriages.
I don't see why there can't be two categories of marriage: Civil marriage and Religious marriage. Voters and courts could decide eligibility for Civil marriage, while Religious marriage would be up to religious bodies. All Religious marriages would be recognized as valid Civil marriages also, but not vice versa.
Well, if it's so inevitable, why does it have to be forced on us by the judicial elite? I suspect that, on the contrary, the "gay" agenda has worn thin since it's gone beyond "tolerance" to "we demand that everyone treat our relationships as equal to traditional marriage". The Bush twins have never struck me as being deep thinkers, but I suspect that they, along with a lot of their age group, will look askance at the gay agenda when they have kids of their own.
Those Bush twins have an unerring sense of the tacky, don't they?
Well, there's no logical reason that twin girls couldn't marry each other, right? If they say they're in love and want to have sex, that should be all it takes. Same with a bisexual and 2other people. Or a man and his goat. They all have "rights", right? After all, thousands of years of Western Civilization have been based on a biased assumption that there's something "special" about one man; one woman. Why not eliminate all the taboos? No doubt an earthly paradise will ensue...
I read the article, and I found the details confusing, but if I'm making sense of it correctly, you're mistaken to say that the Bush twins are attending a gay wedding.
The article says that the gay men are going to "celebrate their marital vows" and that they "were 'wed' last spring in San Francisco." The article never says that the men are getting "married" again -- I don't see how they could: they live in Maryland, and if they intend to continue to reside in The Old Line State, Massachussetts is not supposed to marry them.
So the men will not be legally married during the event the Bush daughters are going to attend (so it isn't a "wedding"), and they will not even have been legally married beforehand.
What's my point? Well, there's no need to make your post more inflamatory than necessary. And I don't think the fact that the Bush daughters are attending a party means they are in favor of gay marriage. They probably honestly like the gay salon owner -- why not? he's probably a great guy. Not everyone who disapproves of gay marriage has the bluntness (or the courage) of a Dr. Laura. It would be hard even for most declared opponents of gay marriage to say no to an invitation like this, so it's especially for young people who haven't invested a lot of thought in it.
The most significant thing you said:
"I'd be quitely setting up a defensive perimeter so that down the line religious groups won't be compelled to buy into gay marraige"
The fear of evangelical Christians is a gathering storm of persecution, a storm just over the horizon though not yet visible. This is what you expressed in different words. Since the prevailing world-view in America has so radically shifted over the last half-century, Christians will have to learn how to develop the counter-culture Jesus described in the Sermon on the Mount.
If homosexuality is in the genes, then today's moves towards gay marriage simply mean that the future will look on back on it the way most people today look at it: Eeew! Yuck!
Living the gay lifestyle radically reduces their fertility. With vanishingly few exceptions, the only gay people breeding at replacement level are those in the closet. In this case, tolerance leads to extinction.
Denial of the simple arithmetic puts one in the position of denying both the religious and the darwinist (my) perspective. Gay weddings get the Darwin Award (it's a self-solving problem). Gay marriage has crested, as surviving Gen-Y and -Z and -AA fill the demographic ocean.
In our way of operating, there are two poles around which everything revolves: the Individual and the State. That is the "ideal" position (ideal in the sense that although there are plenty of anomalies still around, it appears to be the natural consequence of the way our culture thinks). It used to be that there were mediating institutions between these two poles: family, church, community, neighborhood, etc., but these are being crowded out. Social institutions (I think here of family and marriage) are being defined solely on the basis of what individuals desire - they have no reality or definition (or, to use old time terminolody - nature) apart from individual acts of will. Sounds like the victory of an extreme nominalism to me. I wonder if it will work?
We still (sometimes at least) think there are aspects and details of the physical world that are real (i.e. to which we must adapt whether we like them or not). But the social world, the world of institutions, has no reality.
I don't think we should legislate against murder, theft, rape, robbery or any number of social disturbances or pathologies. We should all just get along and love each other in any way, shape or form we desire, even if it is the perverted form of homosexuality. There is nothing natural about sexual difference between man and woman so I think it entirely appropriate that we allow sex and marriage between man and animals. Mr Last, why not write an article on the joys of the rein of Caligula? It would make mor sense.
I don't think we should legislate against murder, theft, rape, robbery or any number of social disturbances or pathologies. We should all just get along and love each other in any way, shape or form we desire, even if it is the perverted form of homosexuality. There is nothing natural about sexual difference between man and woman so I think it entirely appropriate that we allow sex and marriage between man and animals. Mr Last, why not write an article on the joys of the rein of Caligula? It would make more sense.
Yes, you're giving up the fight too easily. First of all, let's be blunt: young people are remarkably ignorant. It's anecdotal, but have you ever seen those Leno segments where he quizzes The Young People? College age kids and those right after graduation are not necessarily up on the nuances of an issue, to put it gently. I know: I was one. I cringe at the some of the stuff I used to support back in my college days. Life hasn't bitten you on the butt yet. When you start having kids, your perspective on everything changes.
Once you realize that you'll have to shuffle them off to a public education system that will mandate celebration of gay pairings in everything from social studies to sex ed, bells start going off. If there's anything these debates have shown, it's that gay "tolerance" is a ratchet--it goes only one way. It's sobering when gay marriage supporters finally understand that they will never be permitted to change their minds on the subject. Ever. You bigot.
Second, there's a serviceable secular argument against state-sanctioned gay wedlock: can the state favor the only pair bonding that can (not necessarily will, but can) produce and rear new citizens-in-training, i.e., man-woman marriage?
What does the state get out of same-sex wedlock? Bigger probate and divorce court dockets, higher employer-related costs, etc. But no new citizens, short of well-to-do lesbians spending several thousand on reproductive technology.
Finally, there are no other lines of defense that can be constructed to protect traditional religious observance. To continue the military analogy, behind this line of defense is an endless stretch of featureless, flat plains. Once the tanks get out into the open....
If, for example, California can ram contraceptive coverage down the throats of Catholic employers--what law can stand against the levelling might of "equal protection"? Paper barriers short of constitutional amendment have been remarkably ineffective against GMg advocates.
I think those that think Americans should just give up and accept "gay marriage" are unnecessarily defeatist. Underneath a surface "tolerance" most people believe there is in fact something "disordered" about homosexual behavior. Almost all my liberal friends will concede this in private conversation. It's striking, though, that at social gatherings in my circle, only the party line ("great--2 gay guys adopting a little girl!")is permitted. There's a lot of social pressure to claim to buy into the idea that 2 moms are just as good as a mom and a dad, etc. I doubt if most people actually believe it, though. As long as the citizenry gets to determine whether marriage should remain as it has been, I believe gay marriage has no chance. Unfortunately, the elites on the Supreme Court seem inclined to impose their allegedly more "enlightened" ideas of social policy on the masses. It looks like we will ultimately need an amendment to the Constitution to protect the age-old definition of marriage. If the voters can decide this issue, I, for one, am not worried.
Uh, haven't you ever heard that sexual/religious/sexual orientation discrimination laws don't apply for the sacramental/religious-focused parts of a tax-exempt religious organization? While Georgetown University will have to pay spousal benefits to gay spouses, that doesn't mean the Church has to perform the actual ceremony or even recognize on a spiritual (sacramental) level that the marriage is valid. Really, if tax-exempt status infringed that much on religious practice, the Church would have been forced to accept women for the priesthood.
Post a Comment