It's a fairly common belief among the left, I find, that big business is conservative. It's a total myth -- if by "conservative" you're talking about moral and cultural issues. A reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog writes in to talk about how big business in Indiana got behind a successful move to defeat a state gay marriage ban. This is not surprising in the least. Corporations are quite progressive, in general, on issues related to race, ethnicity, gender and homosexuality. They conclude that doing so is good for business, which is ultimately their bottom line. Besides, in the social circles elite business people move in, there is little cultural or religious conservatism.
I have to smile when I run into people in Dallas who complain that the Dallas Morning News is, editorially speaking, a conservative newspaper. We are pro-business (but so, post-Clinton, are Democrats), and we are generally pro-Bush (we endorsed the former Dallas resident twice, but have been more critical of him in the past couple of years), but on social and cultural issues, the editorial board policy is: pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-gay rights (though we haven't yet endorsed gay marriage), and pro-immigration. It is what I call a "business Republican" worldview -- fiscally conservative, but socially progressive.
In my experience, this is where most (but not all) business people are politically. To the extent they back Republicans, it's out of hoping that GOP pols will say what the religious and social conservatives want to hear, but not deliver on it. Not really. And that's pretty much what has happened, it seems to me. You? Anyway, the idea that gay marriage is going to be stopped in this country died when the GOP Senate failed to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, and the Bush White House, which campaigned (cynically) on the issue, failed to push for the amendment. That horse has done left the barn, and about the best social conservatives can hope for is that the Supreme Court will recognize a First Amendment religious exemption to civil rights laws regarding homosexuality. If I were betting on it, I'd say that every traditional religious organization in this country is on track to lose its tax-exempt status in the next 10 to 20 years.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
quote: "There's clearly an argument for polygamy. They are as oppressive to women as traditional marriage was into the early 1900s. We have now, however, a different standard for marriage that has moved it beyond the "women are chattle" stage and therefore equality does matter. As a contract, marriage is about equity and equity is more difficult with more than two parties, especially when one party has disproportionate power over the other multiple parties."
Me: It's highly questionable that traditional marriage was oppressive in the early 1900s, especially to talk about a "women as chattel" stage. After all, wives weren't exactly bought and sold at auctions like slaves were. Sorry, but the whole feminist narrative about marriage being oppressive is highly exaggerated, and it's probably insulting to many African-Americans (whose ancestors were chattel slaves) to make such a ludicrous comparison.
Also, who ever said marriage was about "equity" (whatever that might mean)? It's a partnership to be sure, but it doesn't necessarily have to be an equal one, nor do many people want it to be so (including hen-pecked husbands). If "equity" is the goal of marriage, then all kinds of marriage relationships should be broken up since one partner in a marriage often is the more dominate one. Finally, polygamy may be more complicated as a contract (just as a business partnership with multiple partners is), but that doesn't mean anything with regard to banning it.
I'm beginning to suspect that you folks on the left are so interesting in "equality" in marriage because you're channeling Marx through feminism with this whole issue.
rr
'I'm beginning to suspect that you folks on the left are so interesting in "equality" in marriage because you're channeling Marx through feminism with this whole issue.'
Spot on, rr. After all, what else is radical egalitarianism but Marxism in different clothes?
"It's highly questionable that traditional marriage was oppressive in the early 1900s, especially to talk about a "women as chattel" stage. After all, wives weren't exactly bought and sold at auctions like slaves were. Sorry, but the whole feminist narrative about marriage being oppressive is highly exaggerated, and it's probably insulting to many African-Americans (whose ancestors were chattel slaves) to make such a ludicrous comparison."
Women weren't allowed to own property. In wealthy families, the daughter's marriage was viewed primarily as a means of making sure she was taken care of and so that the money could transfer to the man. In poorer families, the marriage transaction was just as financial, passing along the burdens of women from father to husband. She couldn't work outside the home, couldn't own property, couldn't enter into legal contracts. Her sole purpose was to keep house and have children--or supervise those who did it--and have no legal rights that weren't built on a relationship with men. She couldn't get a divorce, even if her husband beat her, and if she did try to end the marriage she would end up destitute since the law had not yet created a means for her to get assets from the marriage.
Sounds pretty oppressive to me, but I guess you have lower standards for what is oppressive since you also find polygamy to be an attractive construct for women.
"It would also flow naturally if you had a civil union."
Apparently NOT if you happen to live in New Jersey.
"And no, a gay marriage is not valid."
Mine is. Certainly as valid as your is.
Just wanted to chime in and say that the "institution" of marriage is in fact a Sacrament, not a man made thing. Marriage was instituted by God, between a man and a woman. This, no matter how much society today would like to, can NOT be changed.
That being said, if homosexuals feel the need to be "protected" under the law to have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples do, then go for that separate legislation because what you have is not a marriage.
Also, I would like to say, for the record, that practicing homosexuality is not a morally correct choice according to God. As the Catholic Church states, being a homosexual is not the sin, acting on those feelings is. We all have our crosses, but we are not supposed to act on them.
Mr. Dreher- You are a refreshing voice in the world of politics. I have told many people about your book and your views. Please keep up the good work!
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.