Not buying it this time
Friday October 27, 2006
For the Won't Get Fooled Again file, here comes the desperate GOP, going to the gay-marriage well one more time, trying to gin up social and religious conservatives to turn out on the belief that voting Republican will keep the...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Top Features
- Inspiration and Hope from The Dolphin
- Let It Shine: Inspiring Quotes About Light
- 10 Tips for a Fearless Life
- All You Ever Wanted
- 7 Ways to Discover Joy
- Allow Good Things Into Your Life
- Seven Patron Saints for Healing and Comfort
- Love Is a Many Splendored Thing
- 'Expect God's Favor': Interview with Joel Osteen
- Spider Raid
- 10 Tips for Inner Confidence
- 7 Ways to Discover Joy
- Seven Patron Saints for Healing and Comfort
- 10 Law of Attraction Lessons in Film
- 10 Tips for a Fearless Life
- Let It Shine: Inspiring Quotes About Light
- Inspiration and Hope from The Dolphin
- A Reason to Celebrate
- Famous Scientology Couples
- Love Is a Many Splendored Thing
Pretty pathetic, isn't it?
I, too, oppose redefining marriage, but this ploy is so obvious that it is laughable.>
This is slightly off-topic, but let us also remember that the Sandanistas now have a pro-life record lightyears ahead of anything the Republicans have ever done.
Daniel Ortega, Prodigal Son>
I know it's mostly politics, but why would the Federal constitution be amended to not allow gay unions? Can't Congress just take away jurisdiction from Federal courts to rule on gay marriage issues, and then individual states can pass their own amendments and/or laws, as they have been doing for the past few years?>
Well said, Rod. You're exactly right about Bush and the Republicans. It's cynical and disgusting. If you believe that marriage should be preserved as its always been defined it's even more disgusting. Better to have a true enemy than a false friend.>
Well, we know that the non-Republicans will be working hard to stave off gay marriage. Not.
There are times when the best offense is known as stonewalling, especially if you don't have the votes to push things through, especially votes necessary to support Constitutional amendments.>
Bush is on record defending state efforts to grant rights for gay couples, but not the use of the term marriage.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6338458/
I don t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that s what a state chooses to do so, Bush said.>
Rod,
"I too believe that traditional marriage is a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and that it must be defended."
"Defended"??? From WHAT? Pansies?
"The only sure way to have defended marriage was to have pushed through a federal marriage amendment to the US Constitution."
To "amend" means to make better. Please explain how kicking gay citizens out of the protections - you know, treating ALL people equally - allegedly guaranteed in the Constitution makes it better.
"The Republicans have proven that they cannot be counted on to take a political risk to protect traditional marriage"
"Protect"??? Against WHAT? Fags?
"If we are going to get gay marriage declared by the courts anyway"
I am less sure than you that you are going to get gay marriage "anyway", but courts deal with what is JUST, not what is popular.
Rod, I know that at times I sound strident, but please realize how offensive your position is. Loving committed gay couples are not "atttacking" the institution; we are trying to join it, to take part in it as full, equal citizens. Nothing more and nothing less.
NO heterosexual couple has been denied marriage since Massachusetts allowed it. No priest, rabbi, imam or pastor has been forced to perform a SSM against the tenets of their religion. Heck, according to Jesse Jackson at a summit of black church pastors, they aren't even being asked to.
Please explain how treating us equally before the law will "destroy" the institution of marriage. Inquiring minds want to know.
As you know, I was married in my church - it is also a "sacred institution" in my religion, just not limited to opposite sex partners. The 'right' wishes to take away MY freedom of religion to follow the tenets of MY church. Why that?
Besides, since when were rights doled out based on the 'sacredness' of one's relationships?
Thanx in advance.>
And next time a Republican makes a promise like this, perhaps he'll have the sense to keep it, or at least make a good-faith effort to do so.
Bingo.>
Curiouser:
Can you just take it as a given that there's a serious if not conclusive case for Rod's premise about marriage? His point is not that premise, but the attempted political exploitation of the issue.
I hope the comboxes here don't become a forum for debating marriage. That debate, in most blogs, has been unedifying even by the low standards of blog comboxes.
If you want to debate marriage or apprehend the non straw-man argument for traditional marriage, I suggest ">http://www.marriagedebate.com/mdblog.php>
I'm one of the world's most passionate fans of marriage. Yesterday we had an anniversary. It was wonderful.
I also happen to have four kids. Two of them came from a previous marriage with the genetic trail. The other two came as a bonus when I married my current wife. It was a second marriage for both of us. She was a widow and I was a survivor of a failed first marriage.
We have a gay son. Whether he came with my genetic trail or is a bonus baby doesn't matter. What matters is he's our son and that he's gay.
If I was lying on my death bed and I only had one thing to say to all of our children it would be that I wish them the same happiness in being a couple as I've had with their mother. I'd wish them all a good marriagel, one with a partner as a friend.
The fact that my gay son would have a same sex partner is a mute point. What isn't a mute point is he is capable as a prime human being of loving and being loved in a committed relationship.
Since the only difference in their relationship and the ones of the straight kids is the sex of the partner, well, heck, the girls are married to guys for gawd's sake. If guys are good enough for my daughters then why couldn't a guy be good enough for my son?
Marriage is a societal manipulation to encourage monogamy. Monogamy is a good thing. One of the things the righteous wrong complain so loudly about homosexuality, especially male homosexuality, is the promiscuity.
Hmmmm, promiscuity is bad. Marriage is good. Marriage discourages promiscuity. Homosexuals are promiscuous. Maybe marriage will work to discourage promiscuity.
Seems like a no brainer to me.
Besides that, I like monogamy. There's something about waking up in the morning and you're just a little off plumb, about an eighth off bubble. You're out of step with the rest of the world. You look across the room and there's someone who knows you better than you know yourself, the love you. That means you're better than you think you are because someone that wonderful wouldn't love you otherwise.
The only thing better than that is having your society confirming your good fortune with their official stamp of approval.
That's marriage. If one of your ties that bind is your faith then you've got bonus points. But your faith is only about your bonus points, not about marriage itself.>
Harvey,
Thank you and amen.
To those who think marriage needs "defending" from people who *want to participate in it*, thereby *increasing the number of married people*, I pose yet again questions that keep getting asked and never satisfactorily answered:
You say "marriage is threatened". Whose marriage? Yours? Mine's not... I've been married to the same woman for twelve years, and we have a beautiful daughter; if my state miraculously pulled a Massachussetts tomorrow I would not go running out to find a man to marry.
You say gay marriages are wrong because they won't produce children. Neither will the heterosexual marriages of several of my friends who have no intention of ever reproducing. If kids are the litmus test, then to be consistent you would have to make that a precondition for ANYONE to get married.
Anyone?>
It is not in the purview of the state to elevate perversion to an equal status.
The state recognises only those unions which serve a purpose. And that purpose is worth perserving until we can get it enshined in our federal constitution. But we must vote. We owe it to those who died so that we would have the right to vote in their stead.>
We owe it to those who died so that we would have the right to vote in their stead.
You owe it to dead veterans to oppress queers?
Huh?>
For thousands of years, it was against the law of almost every land to marry someone of a different race.
We changed that.
Did marriage collapse?
It won't collapse when we allow gay people to marry.
Do you wonder what's going inside my bedroom? The one where the heterosexuals in my house live? Nope?
Then don't worry about theirs and we'll all be as happy as a pig in poopy.>
Anonymous,
Not that I think you'll respond, but...
The state recognises only those unions which serve a purpose. And that purpose is worth perserving until we can get it enshined in our federal constitution.
So what is that purpose? As I said above, If kids are the litmus test, then to be consistent you would have to make that a precondition for ANYONE to get married. In that case, clearly, your statement is inaccurate as men and women are free to marry without reproducing.
If the purpose is not children, then what? If it's to reduce the incidence of people screwing around, then gay marriage should be as effective as heterosexual marriage. If the purpose is religious, then the state has no place in it anyway.>
I agree that its clear the whole gay marriage issuie is only a ploy. Lets face it there are some many other issuies that are important to familys that are just overlooked. I come from a large family and when were were kids all of us were good at pushing each others buttons. Today we are all grown up and no longer respond to the button pushing. Instead we support each other.>
A true Christian church will never bless the sin of homosexuality and gay marriage. You can't bless sin, because God won't recognize a false blessing anyway.
Gays should be happy with civil unions, but push the marriage issue simply because they know it pisses off conservatives.
Gays want to be revered, bottom line. Gays want for the rest of us to proclaim loudly and often that they're perversity is "normal". Advice to gays; don't hold your breath.>
I'm sorry, but the NY Times spin on this is incomprehensible: The REPUBLICANS are trying to stir up the gay marriage issue?!?
I would say the New Jersey Supreme Court did all the stirring that needed to be done, issuing a legal incoherent opinion that ordered the legislature to take certain action against the will of the people. Thereby demonstrating the justices' understanding of the law as merely an instrument of political power.
What did you want Republicans or conservatives to do? If Bush had said nothing, it would be evidence that he had no use for social conservatives. And if Bush says something, it's evidence that he's playing conservatives like fools. And it's the Bush and the Republicans who are the ones raising the issue. Right. Nice logic.>
The basic fallacy here is that Bush and the GOP are at fault for not getting the marriage amendment through. Yes, Bush rather cynically used that proposal in 2004, when every sentient person knows that any Constitutional amendment involving an issue that's even slightly controversial is impossible under our system.
But the real safeguard against courts rewriting our marriage laws is the systematic appointment of judges at ALL levels who understand the law, and the exclusion of those who see their role as "changing society." Reagan and the two Bushes have made considerable progress toward this goal at the Federal level, but as we see in NJ and Mass., state courts (political appointees all) continue to run amok.>
The Beliefnet U.S. Politics board is actively discussing this very topic. Go to the U.S. Politics board and click on to the "Marriage Amendment" thread to join the discussion.>
A true Christian church will never bless the sin of homosexuality and gay marriage.
Well, who cares? This is a civil issue and churches have no business meddling in civil issues.
You can't bless sin, because God won't recognize a false blessing anyway.
G-D is not present in our civil laws.
Gays should be happy with civil unions, but push the marriage issue simply because they know it pisses off conservatives.
No, they want to be treated like everyone else.>
Reader John asked,
"Can you just take it as a given that there's a serious if not conclusive case for Rod's premise about marriage?"
No. I asked what marriage has to be "defended" FROM. No answer. I asked who/what it needs "protection" from. No answer.
It is NOT a "serious" debate if the "right" won't/can't answer simple questions.
Marriage is NOT under attack. Gay people want to join in, participate in the institution since, after all, we are members of soicety too.
Normally I would say "Thanks 4 askin'", but I still haven't heard any ansewrs that aren't religion/"sin" based.
Care to try now, Reader John? Anyone?>
Frank Wells,
"A true Christian church will never bless the sin of homosexuality and gay marriage."
From the rest of your post, it's obvious that YOU don't know from "true Christian" anything.
WHY "should [gays] be happy with" 2nd class status. Would YOU?
"Gays want to be revered"
Wrong again (but thanx 4 tryin'). We want EQUALITY. It's supposed to be guaranteed to us in yer "Constitution - you know, the one they're tryin' to change so it WON'T BE anymore!
Advice to bigots - get a life.>
Frank said, "A true Christian church will never bless the sin of homosexuality and gay marriage."
I wonder how many "true" christians Frank knows. I know "true" baptist christians think mormons are reprobates and unbelievers, well, unless they join them in a vote against gay marriage.
"True" eliminates empirical judgement of christians. It also removes logic from the equasion for the rest of us. After all, Bush and company are considered "true" questions, he lies, she smokes, etc and so on.
Heck I'm just a run of the mill atheist I do everything I can to do any of that.>
I also know a lot of "true Christians" who are Baptist and think I, as a Roman Catholic, am NOT a true Christian. And on the flip side I know some Roman Catholics who think THEY are the only true Christians and all those evil Protestants are going to Hell.
In the long run, I really think God, whether the Judeo-Christian version or another faith's version, really has lot more to worry about than who people sleep with. Let me see: Iraq war, poverty, 43 million uninsured, Darfur, AIDS, etc. etc. etc. Who's in bed next to Dick or Jane? Don't really see it high up on the list of priorities. Sorry.>
If people want to protect marriage, they need to make a good choice in a mate and stick to it.
Why should the government get involved?>
Some interesting questions, liz...
"If people want to protect marriage"
But we STILL don't know what it is they want to "protect" it FROM!
"they need to make a good choice in a mate and stick to it"
I did.
"Why should the government get involved?"
It already IS "involved". It registers marriages and doles out the benefits that ensue. Gay people merely want the exact same treatment by their government - recognition of our marriages and the benefits that ensue. Nothing more and, by God, certainly nothing less.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.