Conservatism's future

I know your point is that some older conservatives are knotheads - but my dispute is with the point that we've lost the SSM battle because of the young. I know this is one of Rawlins' favorite refrains also. But as a twenty-something with a lot of twenty-something friends and family who get the importance of marriage, I don't necessarily concede that. And despite that being anecdotal, I don't think it's a lost cause, either. (*Your* kids will have a solid grounding in the understanding of marriage, and they're young.) Besides, 44 states have a statute or state constitutional amendment defining marriage -- 30 of those have state amendments, and most passed solidly in the last 5-10 years. Isn't it a bit premature to say we've *lost*? I'm not in the "accommodation" phase at all here yet, and as one of those much-cited "young people" I resist that the debate is lost.

Conservatives lost because they did not have any new and fresh ideas. They spent the Bush presidency veering between trying to outspend the Democrats and becoming incredible reactionaries. It had very little to do with social conservatism (although I do feel that the Republicans should become more libertarian on these issues).

As for the youngsters, the emailer does come off cranky, but as a part of Gen Y, I agree with his sentiments. The Baby Boomers managed to raise a generation that is even more whiny and self-absorbed than they are. Gen Yers really make up a bulk of the Obama cultists who feel that the government is their own personal ATM. When I was in college, I remember quite a few of my classmates whining about their student loans or tuition increases despite the fact that they all seemed to have designer jeans, Ipods, personal laptops, and new cars and none seemed to have jobs. Many also racked up credit card debt for stuff they didn't need and bitched about how the credit card companies "misled" them. Frankly, what many in my generation really need is a few years of austerity to shock them into reality.

The state hasn't been in the marriage business all that long. I was reading that George and Martha Washington did not have to obtain any sort of state (colonial?) marriage license. Their marriage was recorded in the sacramental register of their parish church.

I think they have something like this in Latin and some European countries, in which the minister or priest is not a state functionary and is not licensed by the state to perform weddings, although there are civil weddings, just as here. I was looking at the wedding pictures of a friend who is from Argentina. They essentially had two weddings. In one, they appeared at the local registrar's office in dress up but not formal clothes, and had the "civil" wedding. The next day they had the church wedding with the gown, the attendants, at the church with the priest. This was the "real" wedding as far as they and the Church were concerned. As far as the government, the civil wedding was the one that counted and they had no interest whatsoever in the subsequent church wedding.

I am against abortion because it kills people. However, I don't understand why if the gay couple down the street from me wants to get married, why that hurts my marriage. As long as religious institutions are not forced to perform gay marriages, who cares? I have other stuff to worry about. But then I tend towards libertarianism anyway.

Rod,

I've come to the conclusion that the term "conservative" is a misnomer: we can only conserve those things which we already possess. It would be absurd for one to advocate conserving water if their well had run dry since there is no water left to conserve. Politically, it is equally absurd to attempt to conserve innocent life when Roe v. Wade is on the books or conserve traditional marriage when because of the courts serial monagamy under the guise of divorce is not only permitted by encouraged.

Sure, *individuals* can still conserve those ideals that they hold fast to, but this nation as a whole long ago gave up being conservative. The mantra of "change" resonated with voters simply because it is true in the lives of most Americans. We are a people who give little deferance and time to the past. Rather, we are largely a people who are quick to disgard "tried and true" for "new, shiny, faster, larger, quicker, etc." If this was true for past generations, how much truer is this for the current generation that can produce change with the click of a mouse (even entering into a "virtual reality")?

The truth is, Rod, the conservative political movement has been dying for a long time, year by year, issue by issue, state by state. Given the increased velocity with which conservative battles have been fought and lost as well as reformers working from inside the major party associated with conservatism, its difficult to know any longer who exactly a conservative is and what they stand for. In the end, the so-called "conservative movement" has an identity crisis.

-Matthew

Here in Massachusetts we just voted to replace the criminal penalties of possession of one once or less of marijuana with a civil penalty of a $100 fine. We also just voted in favor of prohibiting dog racing.

I am with Mark. I have long advocated the state getting out of the marriage business. It should only sanction civil unions. Marriages should be performed by churches. Each church could set its own definition of marriage. If, for example, the Catholic Church wanted to recognize marriage as a relationship between two Catholics, it could. If Baptists wanted to require marriage classes or fidelity pledges, they could. Getting the state out of the marriage business would let churches concentrate on the spiritual aspect of marriage. Actually, as a total curmudgeon, I am opposed to these huge weddings. They are pure materialistic display. Those should take place, if they must, at the civil unions. The marriage ceremony should be a serious, spiritual celebration and commitment.

Steve

We lost the battle for marriage, period, with the young, I think. When it seems like just a nice option for sexual relationships between men and women, why would it not also be a nice option for homosexual relationships? It's nice!

I've got an even better idea: get the government out of marriages, but keep the idea of households. The government has no say in who my God can and can't deem married. But it can decide who it will recognize as a household for other purposes, such as taxation, health care, child care, etc.

So make it like this: anyone can form a household in any configuration they choose. If someone wants to form a household comprised of themselves and an elderly parent, fine. If two (hetero) single dads want to band together to share child raising reponsibilities, fine. If two lesbians want to do the same, ditto. Appoint one person head of household for legal purposes, and go from there.

What I have found interesting is that many of the most staunch conservatives of today were among the most libertine young people back in the day. Several folks I know locally who are strong evangelical Christians and equally strong Republicans openly admit that they were part of the free-love crowd of the 60s and early 70s.

I wonder if there has been any studies to compare the selfishness of boomers from the 60s and 70s (those who were in the free-love crowd) and how they translated that selfishness into their adulthood as they became conservatives?

As people get older they tend to become more conservative once they have their own families. So in reality, no one knows how this is going to end up. Methinks Ron reads Andrew Sullivan's blog too much. The Excitable one. The laughing stock of the blogosphere.

Matthew hits the nail on the head with this: "Sure, *individuals* can still conserve those ideals that they hold fast to, but this nation as a whole long ago gave up being conservative. The mantra of "change" resonated with voters simply because it is true in the lives of most Americans."

The first thing "true conservatives" attempt to conserve is tradition. That there aren't many "true conservatives" should be evident just about anywhere, but certainly in church services across the religious and political spectrum. Just count the number of men wearing suits and ties and the number of women wearing dresses. (Don't bother considering hats and gloves.) In America today, if it ain't convenient, most people won't support it. And that's why abortion will also be a losing issue for social conservatives.

Matthew, it is interesting that you talk of courts making it easier to divorce. And yet we find that the divorce rates among self-described, born again Christians is roughly the same as the population as a whole. The prescription that I have heard offered is a new form of marriage...sacramental marriage...with laws that would make it harder for folks in these marriages to obtain divorces.

My question on this is simple. If the born again Christian couple takes their vows before God seriously, why do loose divorce laws have any effect on their decision to divorce at all? Surely there is nothing man in his laws can provide for a Christian that carries more weight than a promise or vow made before God in a public setting, is there?

If divorce has become easier under our laws, then Christians should simply refrain from divorcing. After all, God's view on divorce hasn't changed, and that trumps the law, doesn't it?

Two points: one, not mentioned was the idea of American exceptionalism, which seems foundational to many in the GOP. With that concept goes the romanticism of the military and a willingness to torture. Obama seems to be redefining this concept back to its origins in the idealism of the Founding Fathers (a relatively powerless group, if you will recall). If he succeeds, the part of the idea left to the GOP will be the chauvinist/patriotic "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" types. The GOP needs an idealism of its own -- which can't be ordered off the shelf.

Two, isn't it interesting how quickly the discussion on the thread went to gay marriage and sex, just one of many topics for Rod. Are Republicans hung up on sex? A lot of Americans are beginning to think so. Frum said it best: "College-educated Americans have come to believe that their money is safe with Democrats - but that their values are under threat from Republicans."

stefanie: "The point is, Christianity almost universally has accommodated *civil* divorce (even when certain groups w/in Christianity still recognized those divorced as genuinely married.) And not all Christians think divorce is wrong under all circumstances."

Yes it has, and that was the point I was heading towards. For those Christian couples who hold to the stricter views of divorce, the state of the law should be no impediment to them. Even if divorce becomes as easy to obtain as a Big Mac and fries, this should not matter to them IF THEY TAKE THEIR MARRIAGE VOWS SERIOUSLY.

The problem of divorce among Christians in this country is not that the laws are too lenient.

In the words of Max Planck, "An idea does not take hold because people see the light. It wins because everyone opposed to it eventually dies."

The New York Times was gloating yesterday over the defeat of pro-life ballot propositions, even in such deep red states as South Dakota. I mention this because it indicates just how far we have come, or rather how far we have fallen. Even mild restrictions on abortion get swamped in the red states. As it stands, it wouldn't really matter is Roe were overturned; the laws on the books would remain as they are in probably 45 states or more. It is evident that the pro-life movement, after 40 years, has simply failed to make a case with the public. Which is odd. How can you fail to be convincing about life itself?

Which doesn't bode well for marriage. In contrast to some other posters, I would say that the state does have in interest in marriage; it is civil unions which need no legal sanction. If people want to live together under whatever property arrangements they like, it is no business of the state.

But marriage is. Marriage is oriented towards the most indispensable economic and social "commodity," new persons. They are produced, socialized, and educated within the context of the family, and the body politic has a life and death interest in the success of the family. But here's the modern problem: marriage is no longer about children, it's about adult self-fulfillment. Children are an optional feature, with three or even two considered "excessive."

The irony that I'm getting at here is that the modern state has no interest in modern marriage, because that marriage has no real public function. Children, for civil society, are the future, and without children there is no future for society to worry about. The only real issue here is that many benefits are distributed on the basis of being married, and gay marriage forces a public subsidy of the marriage. And since there is public money involved, there is the right for that public to approve or reject whatever form of marriage they are willing to fund. But on the issue of marriage itself, divorced from the family, it has no public function.

Rod, your emailer may be hotheaded and irrational, but I would submit it's because defeatism like what you show in the column drives many traditionalists crazy. Suspecting long-term victory or defeat on any VITAL issue is ALWAYS irrelevant to whether the battle is worth fighting. Why do so many conservatives forget this lesson? Whittaker Chambers went to his death believing he had chosen the LOSING side, yet he chose it anyway. A belief that many today falsely think, by the way, Chambers would happily see repudiated now were he alive. That's because many assume the "cold war" was about fighting revolutionary communism and the former USSR alone. It wasn't. It was much more about fighting the always-changing and thriving form of cultural marxism, relativism, and egalitarianism that has not been vanquished and is directly related to this subject-the normalization of homosexuality. The fact that young people are especially impressionable towards this should hardly be surprising and should certainly not be cause for us to fail to try to convince them of these falsehoods. Moreover, what (more) compromise(s) on this particular subject exactly are you expecting? Virtually ALL traditionalists admit that they are willing to play fair within the arena of democracy, that if Americans vote for an honest redefining of marriage and normalizing of homosexuality after an honest debate about what that means, then they, like any other Americans, have that right. The dishonest state judiciaries (and SCOTUS-see Lawrence for example) are the institutions the other side prefers to prevail in. The Federal Marriage Amendment is the only alternative to this democracy, which I support, but which is clearly unlikely to ever be supported by 3/4ths of the states. THe simple truth is, I believe, there CAN NEVER be an aligning between the religious freedoms we are ALREADY guaranteed in the 1st Amendment and the homosexual-normalization agenda. Never, that is, until the institutional churches (mainly the Catholic Church and Orthodox Judaism as most of rest already have) abandon their missions of speaking the truth on this issue. Speaking about "accomodations" that are not visible to me makes me wonder whether you really understand that. That's not a personal critique of you alone, by the way; it's something I notice more and more among the more powerful mainstream conservative movement. (Think National Review as opposed to Chronicles) Remember that cover story NR did 4-5 yrs. ago by Roger Scruton, entitled "In Defense of Good Sex"? I suspect Lowry received a lot of angry libertarian mail. Have you seen any indication that this is still as serious an issue for them as marginal tax rates, managed 'free trade' agreements, and a neoconservative foreign policy? This is why the so-called "Base", at least the cultural and social conservative wing of that base is so disgusted with not just the GOP, but with many conservatives in the intellectual leadership. Hence, the occasional unhinged email.

Wow! Well, in casting about for someone to blame for the GOP loss, this guy has decided it was young people! They are the ones to blame and drive out! Yikes. And talk radio is blaming the intellectual conservatives....especially Rush. It is ugly and probably going to get uglier. Third Pary anyone?

The young are certainly not a monolithic group, but there are reasons to think that most will not become 'conservatives' as it is presently defined. The reason that so many find them to be a difficult group to understand is because they are pragmatic and not ideological. They will embrace some conservative ideas, if they are demonstrated to be effective, and embrace some very liberal ideas, again, if they have been shown to be effective. They are more data driven.

Time changes many things, including the positions of the "young." In my mid-twenties, I began collaborating with a gay friend on book to be called, "A Young Man's Guide to Good Sex." We assumed sexual information and choices for young men were generic with morally neutral "gay" and "straight" variations. Writing the bulk of the text together, my friend and I envisioned each handling the "gay" and "straight" variations in sidebars. Thankfully, the project never went beyong chapter sketches and, after twenty years, a wife, three children, and watching a host of noble experiment in relationships crash and burn, I came to see the whole project as well as my earlier point of view as some of the idealistic but foolish "childish thinking" St. Paul describes maturity as "putting away." I don't imagine I was or will be the last to make such a journey; consider a similar movement from dogmatic excess to more tempered and balanced realism among (some!) feminists.

The prospect of the state getting "out of the marriage business," and leaving marriage for faith communities to define has obvious merit. Of realistic options, it would have my support. But a still small voice whispers the state is not well served by allowing it to believe it has NO INTEREST in recognizing and supporting the birth and care of children by biological parents who are, in turn, committed to something of greater depth and duration than their own pleasure or entertainment. Abandoning this cultural norm (thus speaks the tax code) for genderless contracts would be another step down the road of replacing wombs and homes with legal/industrial experiments. Such might be certainly be an eagerly sought path to a brave new moral world order for SS couples as well as the designer-child seeking rich. But it would be a benefit at the cost of a further mechanization of body and soul of our social fabric.

Projecting such later costs and taking a longer, wider view is exactly the journey I spoke of earlier and what I would hope a humbler, wiser conservatism will discover and share. Not screetching and blaming but looking long and hard and counting the cost. Rod, please continue your good work in setting that agenda.

RJohnson wrote to me:

"My question on this is simple. If the born again Christian couple takes their vows before God seriously, why do loose divorce laws have any effect on their decision to divorce at all? Surely there is nothing man in his laws can provide for a Christian that carries more weight than a promise or vow made before God in a public setting, is there?"

This is a good question. The key to your question is one of seriousness of the sacred bond. Seriousness in marriage regards a high degree of responsibility. I believe that problem with your assertion is that you place all the responsibility for the marriage bond squarely on the shoulder of the couple. While the couple bears the primary responsibility in the marriage bond - you fail to acknowledge the responsibility of the governing party of the marriage - whether the state, the church, or both toward the bond of marriage. The state has failed in that responsibility in the last 30 years through the promulgation of no-fault divorce statutes.

If I may, I commend to you an article in the March 2005 issue of Crisis magazine by Stephen Baskerville who makes the argument much better than I that America's love affair with no-fault divorce is the most significant reason that threatens marriages here in the United States. I believe you will find the answer to your question in this article. You can read a review of this article here: http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-06-09.

"I'd like to think that as now-young voters age, and begin to form their own families, they will come to a better understanding of the natural law ends of marriage."

And how, exactly, will that understanding make them less accepting/tolerant/supportive of letting gay people marry? If you think gay marriage is fine at 25, what will you learn to change your mind by 45?

Mike

As a young voter, I'll say that what Obama did for my generation was to provide vision and leaderships.

And as another young voter, I'll say, leadership on what, exactly? Promising to increase access to abortion? (And force American taxpayers to pay for it?) Promising to increase taxes? Even if you think those are good policy goals (that the "vision" is something really worthwhile), Obama hasn't led us anywhere at this point. Give me a break.

Stefanie, the fact of sterility does not invalidate the purpose of marriage anymore than the fact of being crippled invalidates the purpose of legs.

What does change all calculations is the availability of cheap and reliable chemical contraception, which is a comparatively recent development, one that happened in my lifetime. It essentially changed the nature of the relationship between men and women, and called into question the whole nature of marriage. Now, marriages can be sterile by choice rather than by nature. Prior to this, children weren't really a "choice" but a natural and nearly unavoidable consequence of marriage. It does raise this question: if marriage is no longer by its nature fruitful, can there be any legitimate bar to homosexual marriage? That is a tougher question for traditionalists to answer, especially trads who have no objections to chemical contraception.

As far as issues of loneliness, etc. go, marriage is not needed for co-habitation. Nor is there any compelling public interest in compelling the partners to remain together. Marriage laws did this (although very weakly, in the last few generations) because the laws were oriented towards the stability of the family. Again, there is no compelling public interest in regulating mere cohabitation.

And benefits are distributed by marriage, because this dates from the time when marriage was supported as a common good, rather than just private fulfillment. Thus, we all accepted the risks involved in insuring non-working spouses and children in workplace insurance programs even though it raised costs for all people, because this was viewed as a necessary part of the social fabric, crucial to the continuance of the nation and indeed of the species. But is there a compelling common good in providing insurance benefits for somebody's non-working spouse in a homosexual marriage? Maybe yes, maybe no, but the people involved surely have a right to comment one way or the other if they are going to be asked to pay.

Homosexual couples do form families by adoption, but not through homosexual congress. The law reflects biology. This may seem old-fashioned to you, but it seems realistic to me.

First off, I am with Mark and his idea of a civil marriage as a distinct entity separate from holy matrimony. I would like to see this; the state could then administer civil marriage rights however it sees fit. People desiring holy matrimony, however, would be held to a higher standard than the civil agreement as far as divorce, fidelity, etc.. However, I doubt this sensible solution will be adopted because I suspect some (not all) of the most energetic proponents of gay marriage are less concerned with legal rights than with gay acceptance by society in general and Christianity in particular.

As a conservative 40 year old Christian, I am opposed to gay marriage in principle, but I would rather see gay people monogamous and leading normal lives than cruising public bathrooms for anonymous sex. I also suspect that the actual number of gay marriages will be fairly low; and that it will be more lesbians than male gays getting married. At least that's the way it seems here in MA, where gay marriage is legal. All the "married" couples I know are lesbians.

Regarding why so many young leftists grow up to be Republicans, the answer is right there: they grow up. I was quite a radical in my youth, probably because at a certain point in one's life it will always seem more fun to hold outrageous opinions, annoy your parents, and meet handsome young men at protest rallies than to join the Young Republicans Club. However, at some point we all have to grow up, and a big part of growing up is realizing that Western Civilization actually is a pretty nice thing, that not everything our grandparents did was terrible, that perhaps we shouldn't throw out two thousand years of church teaching just because we personally find it inconvenient, and that change is not always for the better.

Regarding why divorce rates among evangelical Christians are just as high as secular society; well, as my mother used to say, if you're around it, you pick it up. I was just discussing this with a (non-Christian) friend the other day. She was telling me that when she spends time with the group of friends she grew up with, she comes away vaguely dissatisfied with her marriage. The reason? They are all divorced or separated or planning to separate, and constantly badmouthing their ex's or their soon-to-be ex's, and bemoaning how they gave up their presumably idyllic single lives for such married misery. She exclaimed at how she normally is content in her marriage, and was amazed at how just a few hours with the other group of friends could have such an effect upon her, and how the effect wore off after she avoided the friends in question for a while and spent more time with her happily-married friends.

I don't mean to imply that *all* divorces are the result of imaginary problems; but if all of your friends were getting divorced, you might start to think that perhaps it was just a matter of time until *you* got divorced, and then subconsciously start looking for reasons to fight with your spouse. Just like when your friends start having babies, and then you find yourself thinking that perhaps you should have a baby also; or when your friends start buying houses and you suddenly find yourself perusing the real-estate ads.

As Christians, we may believe with all our heart that divorce is wrong, but when we spend so much time in the world where the single life is glorified, sex is seen as a casual matter, children are seen as a burden, and a normal life is seen as not good enough, it is easy to become infected with that mindset. I would hazard that the divorce rate for Christians who associate primarily with other *practicing* Christians (vs. Christians who go to church on Christmas and Easter only) would be substantially lower than those who are nominally Christians but otherwise secular in their values. Remember, just as a good portion of Catholics are cultural-Catholics, not actual practicing Catholics, a sizable amount of Midwesterners and Southerners self-identify as "evangelicals" meaning their parents were Baptists or Assembly of God or whatever and that they may have been baptized in those churches at one time, but are not necessarily practicing evangelicals.

"The sentiment is real."

I'd never deny that, nor that the sentiment isn't without some value (given how hedonism and homosexuality are so intertwined in gay culture).

But you've got to be able to defend a political position with reason if you want it to prosper, and the logic/rationales offered up by anti-gay marriage folks are virtually non-existent. "The law reflects biology." Good grief.

So I know I'm an anomally in terms of the readership of this blog. I read this blog because I like Rod's ideas on leading a conservative relatively non-consumerist family life. I just happen to be a married lesbian raising two kids in California.

I find it surprising that a lot of the commenters here are suggesting that the state remove itself from the recognition of marriage and instead recognize civil unions. If someone like me were to make that suggestion, I would be accused of trying to destroy marriage. (Of course, I'm already accused of that.) I'm not sure that this idea is the solution most Christian conservatives are looking for, however, because I'd still find someone to perform my marriage and I'd still go around calling my wife, "my wife".

I think the battle against gay marriage will be lost with the next generation or two because I think that gays are making headway in having at least some of our civil rights protected and it is emboldening us to create families. And our kids will be in kid's class, on your kid's soccer team, and maybe even in your kid's scout groups. And your kids and maybe even you will discover that our kids are normal, we take the job of raising up the next generation very seriously, and a vast majority of the issues your family faces are the same as ours. I think we have far more in common than you realize.

"And our kids will be in kid's class, on your kid's soccer team, and maybe even in your kid's scout groups. And your kids and maybe even you will discover that our kids are normal, we take the job of raising up the next generation very seriously, and a vast majority of the issues your family faces are the same as ours."

This former cub scout/boy scout leader/youth sports coach can attest to that.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen disagrees with the notion that Reaganism is dead.

Once again, a middle-of-the-road Republican gets beat by a Democrat. Conservatism fails because no one tries it.

The Polls Show That Reaganism Is Not Dead
By SCOTT RASMUSSEN
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122628429302812557.html

An excerpt:
"The real challenge for the new president will be attempting to govern with a message that resonates with most voters but divides his own party. Consider that 43% of voters view it as a positive to describe a candidate as being like Reagan, while just 26% consider it a negative. Being compared to Reagan rates higher among voters than being called "conservative," "moderate," "liberal" or "progressive." Except among Democrats, that is. Fifty-one percent of Democrats view that Reagan comparison as a negative. There's Mr. Obama's dilemma in a nutshell."

I think young people are turned off by conservatism because modern conservatives have the goofiest crusades.
Our culture is riddled with good folks having to declare bankruptcy over medical treatments, even a lot of folks with health insurance. The delivery of health care in our country is on par with developing and third world countries for many without platinum coverage.
People are losing their homes.
Our youth are overexposed to consumer culture.
Troops have been on multiple deployments in Iraq that on average have exceed the deployments in Vietnam by a couple of years. Families are separated.
The polar ice caps are melting signaling possible cataclysmic climate change.

I could go on.

I think the youth of today wonder what the hell the priorities are when gay marriage has become the focus of the conservative movement. Especially when bible-belt states have some of the highest rates of divorce.

What does biology or "bodily human nature" have to do with wanting the law to frown on a couple of gay guys getting married once and adopting a child but having it smile at Rush Limbaugh's three barren, failed marriages?

Nobody is arguing for laws against gay guys getting together and considering it a "marriage". They can wear white dresses and everything if they want to. The question is whether all of society will be forced to recognize and subsidize their relationship. Also, perhaps you ought to look up the actual statistics on gay relationships. Suffice to say, the rosy hypothetical you describe is practically non-existent.

And by the way, Rod, there is no point in trying to compromise with the gay marriage movement in order to protect religious liberty.

The reason is that the gay marriage movement is precisely about attacking religious liberty, and Christianity in particular.

It's not fueled by a high demand for gay marriage itself. Gays weren't invented yesterday. They've been around for a long time, and if they had much desire for gay marriage for its own sake, that institution would've been invented long ago, particularly in societies that have been gay-friendly.

Instead it's driven by a desire on the part of leftists (both gay and straight) to knock Christian morality down a few notches, by coercing society into recognizing gay "marriage" as the equivalent of actual marriage. If you were to remove the opportunity for the lavender mafia to step on religious liberty, you'd pretty much have taken away the actual motivation for the whole thing. So don't bother. You're not going to find any compromise between religious liberty and the desire to snuff it out. Just resist until they send you off to the reeducation camps.

"The question is whether all of society will be forced to recognize and subsidize their relationship."

Uh, no. That's not the question, even though such anxious victimization seems to be the default attitude of many folks nowadays.

There is no such thing as gay marriage. Let me repeat, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE. The Institution of Holy Matrimony does not have a homosexual subdivision. It's not like Pepsi and Diet Pepsi. "Gay Marriage - Everything you love about marriage, just half the gender." There aren't some people getting married while others get gay married. There's just people getting married. The question is, what is the argument for denying to some what everyone else takes for granted? It's not about inflicting anything on anyone.

Mike

The demographics on pro8:

Vote by Age Yes No
18-29 (20%) 39% 61%
30-44 (28%) 55% 45%
45-64 (36%) 54% 46%
65+ (15%) 61% 39%

The 30-44-year olds grew up in the same toxic culture that the 18-39-year-olds agre growing up in. What's the difference? Probably: age, and the fact that many of them are now married.

The 30-44-year olds grew up in the same toxic culture that the 18-39-year-olds are growing up in. What's the difference? Probably: age, and the fact that many of them are now married.

As a GenXer, my peer group and I grew up in the toxic brew called Reaganism. It was toxic in the sense that most GenXers I know have a stifling reactive attitude about political affairs that leads to somehow not being able to think things through clearly- be it due to deep aversion or going off the rails or clinging to simplistic dogmas. It's of a piece with Joan Didion's observation that Reagan and his crowd made stupidity acceptable (indeed, virtuous in some of its forms) in American politics, at highest levels of American government and in the public square.

I was a minor acquaintance for several years of probably the best known Bush Administration GenXer, Meghan O'Sullivan. (Well, maybe Monica Goodling is the most famous now.) Meg has many good qualities and is more intelligent than a lot of people, but in a lapse that is somehow typical of our 'generation' she simply blocked out or failed to assemble the existing evidence to reach the strategic political insights about post-Hussein Iraq now widely agreed upon at the time she could have affected policy. On the other side of the spectrum I've watched Markos Moulitsas and that circle also struggle, with somewhat better success at this point, to overcome a series of mental blind spots, gross aversions, and bad assemblages of evidence. Btw, Markos is long married with two children and Meg is not (last I heard).

GenXer voting has also shifted a few percent more liberal and Democratic over the past two election cycles. Maybe the arrested development has come to an end.

It's also sort of interesting that the people Rod likes to quote or link to seem to be either under 30 or over 50.

Nationwide, only 40% of voters 18-29 support gay marriage. Support for some kind of civil unions is at about 50-50 overall, but even those views are very uncertain. Conservatives have not lost the argument at all. As for CA, if you leave out the votes of San Francisco and the surrounding counties, Prop 8 would have passed by 13 points. It even passed in Los Angeles. As CA becomes more Hispanic, which it does by the day, it is just as likely that support for gay marriage will decline as that it will grow. And remember that this is the state with the gay capital of the world in it. Proponents of gay marriage are 0-30 in statewide votes. Explain to me again how the argument has been lost?

FWIW, I have two children who are Gen X, and one on the cusp with Gen Y. (The youngest is a Millennial.) So we kind of span the generations. They'd all have voted against Prop 8. Indignantly. The one who's married with two children is also the one who has a close friend who's gay, married (to another man), and the adoptive father of a little girl. I think it's too late for them to grow up to be anti-gay rights.

Well, I see MBunge is intent on making war on both biology and logic now:

"There is no such thing as gay marriage. Let me repeat, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE.... There aren't some people getting married while others get gay married. There's just people getting married. The question is, what is the argument for denying to some what everyone else takes for granted? It's not about inflicting anything on anyone."

Gay people are already allowed to get legally married, just not to members of the same gender. Which is to say, they have the same marriage options as everyone else. So by your logic you shouldn't have any complaint, since if there's no possible such thing as gay "marriage", there's nothing being denied, right?

Alright, back to reality. The goal of the gay "marriage" lobby is specifically to allow them to get "married" gayly, since they already have the option of getting married normally. Or, more specifically, it's to force all of society to recognize and subsidize their gay "marriage", since they already have the option of getting gayly "married" without special legal recognition.