The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Another Perspective

Marriage: A Hill to Die On

By on 4.6.09 @ 6:07AM

The Iowa Supreme Court forces conservatives to fight.

Back in the 1970s, William F. Buckley Jr. was invited to debate feminist author Germaine Greer at the Oxford Union, but found that he and Greer were unable to agree on the wording of the resolution to be debated. After a long exchange of trans-Atlantic telegrams, Buckley in exasperation cabled his final proposal: “Resolved: Give ‘em an inch, they’ll take a mile.”

In that simple phrase, Buckley summed up a basic truth about the conservative instinct. Over and over, we find ourselves fighting what is essentially a defensive battle against the forces of organized radicalism who insist that “social justice” requires that we grant their latest demand.

We know, however, that their latest demand is never their last demand. Grant the radicals everything they demand today, and tomorrow they will return with new demands that they insist are urgently necessary to satisfy the requirements of social justice.

When they refer to themselves as “progressives,” radicals express their own basic truth: Their method of operation is always to move steadily forward, seeking a progressive series of victories, each new gain exploited to lay the groundwork for the next advance, as the opposition progressively yields terrain. Such is the remorseless aggression of radicalism that conservatives forever find themselves contemplating the latest “progressive” demand and asking, “Is this a hill worth dying on?”

My own instinct is always to answer, “Hell, yes.” Nothing succeeds like success and nothing fails like failure. Ergo, to defeat the radicals in their latest crusade (whatever the crusade may be) is to demoralize and weaken their side, and to embolden and encourage our side. Even to fight and lose is better than conceding without a fight because, after all, give ‘em an inch and they’ll take a mile.

This explains much about why I disagree with some conservatives who say we should not expend much effort defending traditional marriage against the gay-rights insurgency.

Some conservatives are wholly persuaded by the arguments of same-sex marriage advocates. Others, however, are merely unprincipled cowards and defeatists. Concerned about maintaining their intellectual prestige, some elitists on the Right do not wish to associate themselves with Bible-thumping evangelicals. Or, disparaging the likelihood of successful opposition, they advocate pre-emptive surrender rather than waging a fight that will put conservatism on the losing side of the issue.

Yet if the defense of traditional marriage — an ancient and honorable institution — is not a “hill worth dying on,” what is? In every ballot-box fight to date, voters have supported the one-man, one-woman definition of marriage. As indicated by exit polls in California last fall, this is one issue where the conservative position is widely endorsed by black and Latino voters. Should such a potentially promising political development be abandoned?

Buckley’s “give ‘em an inch” response to Greer is instructive in more ways than one. In the 1970s, women’s equality was a cause with even more elite prestige than gay marriage enjoys today. Legalized abortion and no-fault divorce were but two of the specific policy innovations easily won by what was then called the “women’s liberation” movement.

With few exceptions, even most conservatives viewed “women’s lib” as relatively benign. Conservatives were then mainly concerned with fighting Communist aggression — the central uniting principle of Frank Meyer’s “fusionist” coalition — and feminism seems to have struck them as a rather silly domestic distraction from the big game of stopping the Reds. Thus it was that Richard Nixon and others endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment without caveat.

Phyllis Schlafly, however, had a more perceptive understanding of the profound issues involved. The woman who had backed Barry Goldwater in 1964 by insisting that the GOP must offer voters A Choice, Not an Echo saw that in endorsing the ERA, Republicans were once again guilty of echoing liberalism. It was Schlafly who played the key role leading the long battle to prevent ratification of the ERA in state legislatures.

Feminists have never forgiven Schlafly for her success in that cause. Arguably one of the most influential American women of the 20th century, Schlafly has been smeared as a “traitor” to women’s rights and caricatured as a puritanical reactionary seeking to relegate women to second-class citizenship — barefoot, pregnant and toiling in the kitchen.

Schlafly’s opposition to feminist ideology, however, never made her an opponent of women’s freedom or achievement. She worked her way through college during World War II test-firing machine-gun ammo in a munitions plant, and later earned a law degree. Even while raising six children, Schlafly was constantly active in political and civic life, and she mentored many other conservative women leaders. (Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter both extol Schlafly’s example.)

Schlafly discerned that the ERA sought to embed in our Constitution a radical egalitarian ideology alien to our nation’s traditions and contrary to fact. Feminist ideologues insist that men and women are not merely equal in the Lockean sense — having the right to life, liberty and property — but are radically equal in the sense of being inherently identical.

The differences between men and women, according to the egalitarian view, are so trivial that the law must forbid any recognition of such differences, so that the sexes are treated as interchangeable. As I argued in January, it is from a careless acquiescence to this egalitarian falsehood that Americans have been steadily — one might well say “progressively” — marched to the point where the Iowa Supreme Court mandates gay marriage and anyone who questions that ruling is dismissed as an ignorant, hateful bigot suffering from the mental disorder of “homophobia.”

It is only by the activist rulings of judges and other officials, never at the behest of voters, that the radical crusade for same-sex marriage has advanced this far. We know which side the people are on. Even Barack Obama was shrewd enough to declare his opposition to same-sex marriage during the presidential campaign. We have seen voters in 30 states pass constitutional amendments to defend the “one-man, one-woman” definition of marriage, and conservatives in Iowa are now planning efforts to add their state to the list.

Having been given an inch, the radicals now attempt to take a mile. But this is a hill to die on.

About the Author

Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (151) |

USpace | 4.3.09 @ 11:56PM

.
I think fighting statism and socialist tendencies are much more important.
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
sex for FUN is evil

save it for procreation
have dozens of children

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe is
MAD at Gays on Earth

all will decide to be gay
if they can be married

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
outlaw gay microbe sex

NO recreational sex
procreation must be goal
.

Martin Knight| 4.4.09 @ 7:27AM

And where did the author mention God, I wonder?

NOTE to all:
Being opposed to gay marriage does not make one religious.
Being opposed to gay marriage does not mean one is opposed to recreational sex.
Being opposed to gay marriage does not mean one wants to criminalize homosexuals.

USpace above is showing a classic Lefty trait - they can only argue straw men.

Dario Gagliano| 4.4.09 @ 7:59AM

FANTASTIC article.

This is a hill to die on! We need to start taking the OFFENSIVE.

ts| 4.4.09 @ 3:29PM

OK, please die. Seriously, I'll happily give you the gun if you promise to pull the trigger.

Dropping By| 4.4.09 @ 5:03PM

To support the writer, here's another example from the 1970s:

I still remember that some conservative political forces, during that time, were in opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. One argument they made was that the ERA would open the door to men marrying men and women marrying women. I was a young teenager at the time, and the concept of gays marrying had never occurred to me before. It seemed utterly nonsensical to me -- why would a man want to marry a man? My skepticism seemed warranted when progressive political forces responded with outraged and disgusted disdain to the argument -- the ERA, they said, had nothing to do with gay "marriage." They insisted conservatives were just trying to smear them.

Uh, turns out the conservatives were correct. Just as soon as the "inch" was granted by the Massachusetts Supreme Court (in 2004) and then by the U.S. Supreme Court (in 2005), progressives began to demand the "mile" -- and now, just a few years later, we've gone from gay marriage being disavowed as "unthinkable" to it becoming a central issue in the (Cold) Culture War.

Thanks Mr. McCain -- always love your stuff.

Richard L. Kent, Esq. | 4.5.09 @ 8:28AM

The imposition of gay marriage by fiat is not really about married gays, since no more than a few dozen will actually marry anyway. It's about giving the left the power and the excuse to disenfranchise Christian believers for following their faith in public. We're all a buncha Bull Connors, donchaknow, and we'll deserve every day in prison we get for opposing the Forces of (the Bringer of) Light. Look at what happened to "Harmony.Com"...and know that this is what they have in mind for YOU in the days ahead.

Richard L. Kent, Esq. | 4.5.09 @ 8:29AM

Correction. "eHarmony.com".

Rightfromthestart| 4.5.09 @ 9:21AM

I agree entirely but Mr. McCain doesn’t mention that this issue is just one of dozens of issues in which the ‘progressives’ are on the march. Boy Scouts, ROTC, the military, religion, talk radio are some others. Any and every institution that has about it the ‘taint’ of traditional decency is under attack on a broad front. Under what Ann Coulter calls a tsumani of lies. We must follow Churchill and fight the way the left does.

‘Never Give In — never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy." — Winston Churchill — October 29, 1941.

Mark30339| 4.5.09 @ 12:05PM

Can we shrug with Atlas and JohnGalt en masse to Quebec and achieve secession there? or maybe Upper Peninsula Michigan? or can the Republic of Texas be re-instituted? or perhaps territory in northern Mexico can be bought?
.
How do you undo rule by judiciary? They kidnapped children to their insane buses to integrate schools. They empowered mothers to abort, such that today's youth, the unaborted, live with an innate cynicism born of survivor's guilt in a culture of baby kill roulette (a virtual army of Deer Hunter Christopher Walkens predisposed to nihilism). They favored internet pornographers when legislatures blocked their reach to children. And now, the culture's signal that a mother and father are presumed and preferred to be bonded by marriage, a key inspiration for children, is judicially swept away.
.
This battle was lost a generation ago and its offspring are coming to the fore in an age that self-deludes from critical thinking. We live by wishful thinking and choose leaders by semantics instead of substance. The ineptness is so palpable and cascading, is it not best to start building the John Galt enclave now?

sinz54| 4.5.09 @ 6:00PM

Same-sex marriage has not "swept away" the institution of marriage in Massachusetts or Iowa. Many thousands of heterosexual couples are still getting married in those states, and their moral status and legal status are still intact.

The Monster | 4.5.09 @ 7:17PM

In a "same-sex marriage", if there's an allegation of domestic violence, who should the cops assume is the perpetrator, regardless of evidence to the contrary (such as wounds the imputed perpetrator received at the hands of his presumed victim)?

If a "same sex marriage" ends in divorce, who should the courts automatically decide (abesnt overwhelming evidence to dislodge the presumption) is the best parent, and whom should they force to pay child support, and grant limited "visitiation rights" subject to revocation by the custodial parent at a whim?

Anthony| 4.6.09 @ 9:14AM

Attorney Kent reminds us of the ultimate con the left managed to put over on the rest of our society about us conservatives; Bull Connors was a Democrat in good standing.

John| 4.6.09 @ 11:35AM

"Same-sex marriage has not "swept away" the institution of marriage in Massachusetts or Iowa. Many thousands of heterosexual couples are still getting married in those states, and their moral status and legal status are still intact. " -sinz54

Wait a generation or two. That's when the damage becomes apparent. Look at abortion, cohabitating/ having children out of wedlock...etc

JP| 4.6.09 @ 12:05PM

These examples of the Left Overrach should be a precaution for the President. These same things happened to Presient Carter. I remember the ERA movement; the attack by militant feminists on on school districts that didn't excercise equality in High School sports (ie men cheerleaders in Tennesse, 4-women baskteball in Iowa, or female being able to wrestle with boys); Larry Flynt and porn; taxes in California; and Eminent Domain issues in the West. While President Carter had no control of most of these issues, his party was deemed an enemy of socially conservative rural voters, as well as urban Catholics. It was guilt by association. It weakened President Carter politically.

President Obama has much more skill than the former govenor of Georgia. But, the stakes are much higher. Last week the Federal Courts essientially made future combat zones crime scenes; activists are intent on redefining an insitutution vital to our future (marriage); and Obama has made it clear he will sign a Freedom of Choice Act. The President may be missing the furor with Catholics over his visit to Notre Dame next month, but he would be well advised not to expect the same number of Catholics to vote for him in 2012. The Great Unifier is anything but.

Big Leo| 4.6.09 @ 12:13PM

Perhaps the best solution is to get government out of the marriage business altogether. In all Christian churches, marriage is a sacrament. Let the churches decide what marriage is. Some have already given in to the spirit of the times and sacramentalized homosexual marriage. The only role of government should be to certify civil covenants.

J David| 4.6.09 @ 1:22PM

Mark30339 is right, and the discussion here is not really even about gay marriage (acceptable or not) or even the sanctity of the institution if marriage. In a macro sense, it is about arresting the accelerating collapse of Western civilization in saving centrally essential institutions that have been so in every culture since history began being recorded, seen first in the nuclear family, an abomination to liberal/progressives, God-haters, atheists, and perverts of every stripe.

The very answers, or non-answers, to the subject on this site demonstrate, indicate to me at least, we are past a no-return point. We don't see China, or India, or the nations of Islam wringing their hands over marriage issues, especially "gay marriage" (a mutually exclusive, oxy-moronic term, to describe mutant organisms trying in vain to join opposing parts), and they are likely laughing up their sleeves at the West's obvious decay and vulnerability over such things.

Patton was such a successful general because of his theory of always attacking, from any and all angles available, and always maintaining that momentum (keeping the enemy always on defense and retreat) by continuing to attack. Republicans (and I do not mean conservatives) long ago ceded the initiative to Liberals, and I see no change in that retreat posture after losing two major elections.

FlexSF| 4.6.09 @ 1:34PM

We expect to have access too the same liberties that every American utilizes. We expect nothing more, and nothing less, because we pay our taxes. What is radical about that?

Siegfried X| 4.6.09 @ 1:37PM

"Republicans ... long ago ceded the initiative to Liberals"

Yes. The Republican Party of the last 8 years seemed to believe in nothing but fighting wars in the Middle East. On everything else, they deliberately did nothing: defense outside the Middle East, the economy, social issues, fighting political correctness, etc.

We had the first Republican president & congress in 70 years, and nothing conservative was accomplished, or even tried, except for some TEMPORARY tax cuts, Justice Alito, and a weak attempt to change Social Security. President Bush accomplished more for the liberals such as his prescription drug program, signing McCain's campaign censorship bill, and his failed amnesty plan.

J David| 4.6.09 @ 1:49PM

Initiating democracy in a country that has never, in the history of the world had it probably counts for something, and Justice Roberts(though reluctantly done) as well, but all-in-all Bush set up the illegal alien, madrassa-educated, Kenyan/Indonesian communist bomber/cop-killer buddy, Barack Hussein Obama.

mike| 4.6.09 @ 2:56PM

I don't understand. Can we still puke in our mouths a little when we see two June brides with hairy chests on the beach.

Joe| 4.6.09 @ 3:20PM

TS, let me return the favor. I will give you the gun and you can follow through.

jharp| 4.6.09 @ 3:35PM

"Initiating democracy in a country that has never, in the history of the world had it probably counts for something"

You're nuts. There is a long, long way to go. And as soon as we leave it starts. Whether it's next weel or in 16 months. The worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history made possible by the worst President in U.S. history.

BAGHDAD, April 6 -- A series of six car bombs struck markets, a police convoy and a gaggle of workers in Shiite Muslim neighborhoods Monday, killing 32 people and wounding more than 120

J David| 4.6.09 @ 3:52PM

Yeah, jharp, I see a lot of people being gassed and put through shredders and rape-rooms as a part of gov't policy these days...maybe a little proportional perspective is in order. We have had before, and will have again, terrorist acts in this country, in England, in France, etc, but they are still rightly or wrongly, being called *democracies* while systematically eliminating individual liberties, free speech, free market capitalism, while Iraq is steadily increasing in ALL of those areas. Proportion, though is impossible when all of the world is viewed through hate.
I think Bush was one of the very worst representatives of *conservatism* EVER to occupy the White House, and may have been more instrumental in ending, ultimately, the Republican Party than any man alive or dead, but it doesn't mean he was the personification of evil, or that everything he did was bad. It just means he was tool, supported by other well-meaning but naive "tools" who were optimistic(AKA "gullible") but VERY wrong about how down the bowl Western civ has swirled.

jharp| 4.6.09 @ 4:14PM

J David,

As Mr. McCain said "A Hill to Die On" only it was Iraq in this case. And the GOP died.

But by all means keep stumping for what a brilliant decision the Iraq War was. You have done so well with it.

"I think Bush was one of the very worst representatives of *conservatism* EVER to occupy the White House"

Too funny. Bush was the very worst to EVER occupy the White House. And was cheered by and enabled by CONSERVATIVES. From torture, to Iraq, to Terry Schiavo, to warrantless wiretapping of Americans, to record deficit spending, to deregulation of our financial markets, to horrific monetary policy, to incompetent Katrina response, to taxpayer handouts in the medicare drug coverage,... did I leave anything out?

Big Leo| 4.6.09 @ 5:14PM

It's easy to second-guess Bush on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but the alternative was always potentially worse.

Because of our dependence on international trade, especially the trade in oil, any enemy which cuts off our supply of oil or totally dominates the main sources of our supply of oil must be defeated. Iraq's former government had the desire and the ability to dominate its neighbors and had actually attacked two of them, conquering one. It financed terrorism in the Middle East. It also broke every clause in the armistice it signed after the first Gulf War, which itself constituted several declarations of war on us.

Afghanistan harbored the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11. If that government had not been destroyed, not only would Al Quaeda had a safe haven in one country, but others would be encouraged to extend them the same refuge in the sure knowledge that we would do nothing about it.

We had a choice to engage in both of these wars, but to do so would have encouraged the expansion of Iraq to dominate the entire area and guaranteed safety for the terrorists that killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and many hundreds more before and since. I don't see the alternative potential outcomes as viable for us in the long run, or even in the short run unless we were willing to accede to terrorist and economic blackmail.

So which world do you want? The admittedly difficult one we have, or one where Iraq still threatened to dominate its neighbors (or worse, actually had) and occupied Bahrain, or much more and several other nations had joined Afghanistan as safe havens for terrorism, and where Al Quaeda still existed as a strong force capable of launching major attacks on the US.?
Those are the real choices.

jharp| 4.6.09 @ 5:25PM

"So which world do you want?"

The one without the war in Iraq. And the one without a stronger and much more influence wielding Iran.

Iraq had no connections to al Qaeda. Iraq was an enemy of al Qaeda.

"Because of our dependence on international trade, especially the trade in oil, any enemy which cuts off our supply of oil or totally dominates the main sources of our supply of oil must be defeated."

And where in the hell did you come up with this? The Iraq oil belongs to the Iraqis and they can not sell it or sell to whoever in the hell they want.

And Iraq was somehow "cutting off our supply of oil" or "dominating the main sources of our oil"?

A stupid post even for you Leo. Put the crack pipe down and think before you post such utter lunacy.

jharp| 4.6.09 @ 5:27PM

Oh, I forgot, Leo.

I am happy to see someone finally openly admit the Iraq War was about oil. That, I gotta give you credit for.

Big Leo| 4.6.09 @ 5:31PM

So jharp chooses a world where Iran is strong (presumably with an atom bomb), Al Quaeda has refuges in many nations, where Iraq occupies Bahrain and dominates the Emirates and probably Saudi Arabia. Since he can't even read as pr the example "Iraq had no connections to al Qaeda. Iraq was an enemy of al Qaeda, " which of course I never said, why am I not impressed?

jharp| 4.6.09 @ 5:58PM

"So jharp chooses a world where Iran is strong"

No, you dumbass. I specifically stated the opposite.

"And the one without a stronger and much more influence wielding Iran. "

jharp| 4.6.09 @ 6:02PM

Big Leo| 4.6.09 @ 5:31PM

"which of course I never said"

This is what you said.

"to do so would have encouraged the expansion of Iraq to dominate the entire area and guaranteed safety for the terrorists that killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 "

And I'll say again you pea brained imbecile.

Iraq had no connections to al Qaeda. Iraq was an enemy of al Qaeda,

jharp| 4.6.09 @ 6:52PM

Iraq also never gassed minorities and CLEARLY proved to the satisfaction of the entire UN that its chemical weapons had been properly destroyed.

Besides, who cares about whether people browner than me can vote or not? If it's a Republican doing the liberating, let them be tortured and oppressed until a Democrat gets into office.

George| 4.6.09 @ 6:58PM

Marriage is an honorable estate and that is what the homosexual desires. That the practice of his/her unnatural acts be blessed and elevated by debasing the institution of marriage

Big Leo| 4.6.09 @ 7:00PM

jharp,
I apologize, you indeed said ""And the one without a stronger and much more influence wielding Iran. "
However, you took my sentence out of context of the entire paragraph and said I believed Iraq sponsered the 9/11 attacks which I definitely did not.

Also, Iraq did gas and massacre minorities and never 'proved' that its chemical weapons had been destroyed.

Your totalitarian nature and contempt for real democracy, so typical of liberals is expressed in your statement, "who cares about whether people browner than me can vote or not? " The people care, harpo, the people care.

jharp| 4.6.09 @ 7:00PM

I might also note that while Saddam didn't have overt support for Al Qaeda, he did provide well-documented support for the following organizations (all of them peaceful in nature, with nothing to do with terrorism):

> Fatah-Revolutionary Council
> Palestine Liberation Front
> Islamic Ulama Group
> Renewal and Jihad Organization
> The Afghani Islamic Party
> Islamic Jihad Organization
> Egyptian Islamic Jihad

A more peace-loving selection of organizations doesn't exist.

jharp| 4.6.09 @ 7:07PM

Big Leo,

Your apology is accepted. Thank you.

And. This is not the real jharp but a cowardly impostor.

"who cares about whether people browner than me can vote or not? "

Is that allowed here? Impersonating another poster?

Also, jharp| 4.6.09 @ 7:00PM is not me.

jharp| 4.6.09 @ 7:11PM

"However, you took my sentence out of context of the entire paragraph and said I believed Iraq sponsered the 9/11 attacks which I definitely did not. "

No. You are wrong again.

I simply pointed out that Iraq had no connections to al Qaeda. And was an enemy of al Qaeda. After you said this "to do so would have encouraged the expansion of Iraq to dominate the entire area and guaranteed safety for the terrorists that killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 "

Big Leo| 4.6.09 @ 7:16PM

I will point out again that this was a concluding sentence which included several thoughts before it. I clearly referred to both wars (Afghan and Iraqi) in my post. I will point out yet again that you have a reading comprehension problem.

Big Leo| 4.6.09 @ 7:32PM

Well, we've been conned again. We let the thread on the nature of marriage be turned into a Bush bashing festival. My bad, too.

If the majority of the people wanted gay marriage, I would still think it was wrong and would not recognize it. Nor would I allow our church to perform gay marriages, since it is contrary to our statement of conduct. However, I would find it hard to deny the right of the people to make a law allowing gay marriage, even though it is a bad law that will lead to greater problems in the future. That's the difference between conservatives and liberals. They want their agenda to be made law WITHOUT having a majority of the people. They don't trust the people to make an informed decision.

I laughed at people back in the '70's who said that the ERA would lead to gay marriage. I sneered at people who said the civil rights act in the sixties would lead to racial quotas. Now I understand the nature of the leftist much better. They do not play well with others unless they are in command and making all the rules. The whole litany of socially destructive ideas will follow; legalization of incest, polygamy, and repeal of age of consent laws. Lawyers are already ramping up legal cases in favor of polygamy in the two Arizona towns where polygamy has been almost universal for over fifty years. Am I deluded to believe this? I was deluded in the sixties and seventies because I didn't realize just how destructively evil the left was. I'm not deluded now.

jharp| 4.6.09 @ 7:33PM

Big Leo| 4.6.09 @ 7:16PM

"I clearly referred to both wars (Afghan and Iraqi) in my post. "

Yes you did.

And you were clearly wrong to include Iraq.

That. Is exactly my point.

bill kotcher| 4.6.09 @ 7:52PM

Such a simple debate, as simple as math.

1+1=2
1+2=3

A man and a man does not equal a man and woman. To propose government and science make all things equal is insane and impossible.

The reason there are rules in society is simply history shows men need rules to live by. How can anyone disagree that law is needed and that man must be controlled.


Not to mention that the details of homosexual sex cannot be discussed due to the nature of the act. Technically its a subject left for the bathroom (at least from a sanitary point of view).

Tony in Central PA| 4.6.09 @ 10:19PM

Apparently, a nice thing about being a state supreme court justice is not having to answer questions from anybody. Questions like, " How do you define marriage ? ", or " If the sex of the principals has nothing to do with marriage, why should it be limited to just two persons ? ". I suppose future justices will be drawn from the ranks of protestors screeching unintelligibly, unable to make coherent arguments for their latest radical demand, but rabid in their adherence to the cause..
Same sex marriage demands will " progress " as McCain points out from tolerance to acceptance to approval to endorsement. Today, the demand is for states to recognize the " equivalence " of same sex marriage. Within a decade, the demand will be for churches to perform same - sex marriages or lose their right to exist in this nation.

lila| 4.6.09 @ 10:29PM

I used to be a liberal, so I know how nasty and loud some libs can be. But, my friends, they can't help themselves. they are just that way. If they can't debate, they just make things up. If you don't agree with them, they call you a bigot, racist, gay basher, etc. So intellectual. It's really pointless to try to talk to them. and they usually only repeat the same old talking points. Compassionate, tolerant, moral? Now that is the biggest lie of all. Democrats are the party of KKK and Bull Conner, the guy that attacked the blacks with water hoses and dogs, remember him?

The Liberal nut jobs scream about torture, but think nothing of the torture that unborn babies feel when ripped from their mothers womb. Look at a sonogram if you think they are not human. Now that is the opitomy of torture.

Republicans are the party that fought for black Americans voting rights and freedoms, the party of Lincoln. Yes, really, but Libs try to make it their own, too. and Anyone that can do real research knows that Bush is not the worst president. Thats just silly and moronic, but boy if you repeat it over and over a liberal will run with it instead of looking up the facts. It's obvious some the these libs know nothing about history, and that is what happens with a dumbed down population that votes for a Frat Boy president. Bush has given more money for Aids research and help to stamp out Malaria in Africa than any man in history. there are many countries that respect Bush, (But to hear the our new King tell it, we are not respected anywhere and we are arrogant, to boot. Thats a bunch of BS.) Bush did not start the deregulation mess, even Clinton said that. Fannie and Freddie?follow Barnie Frank(D) on that one. Yes Bush could have done more on the border and he did, with help from our new tax cheat in the IRS office, increase this money mess that Obama has escalated beyond belief, though.

As far as the Butcher of Bagdad, I am glad he is rotting in hell. and the Iraqi's did dance in the streets when we went in, did you not see it on MSM? The Butchers own generals said there were WMD's there and they took them to Syria, right before we showed up. Haven't heard that on the MSM tho. I didn't hear one liberal say anything about that monster when he was killing his own people. Where were the "Give Peace a Chance old hippie crowd and easily swayed youngsters" then? Oh they were probably at the airports spitting on our troops. Oh, that was Vietnam, but same mindset today. More people have voted in Iraq than ever have in the United States, due to American soldiers. I am so sick of some of the whiney cry babies that voted for Obama.

As far as gay marriage, you don't have to be a hater to disagree, but then again, if you are a liberal nut job, you do. They are angry all the time, even if they win. I guess Obama must not be that great, if he was, they wouldn't keep going back to Bush, Bush, Bush. I think they secretly love him, don't you? Must be trying to take the attention off the Kingand Queen of Protocol, the guy that thinks there are 57 states, the "one" that can't make a speech without 12 teleprompters and bows down to the Saudi Prince. Way to go, Barry.

Now we have a president who thinks we should all sacrifice, even though he has given less to charity than any president in recent time, 1%. Even less than me.He and "jackie Kennedy want to be" party till all hours in the white house, eat food most Americans can't afford, goes into "work" anytime he feels like it and leaves every weekend because it is boring in the white house. Boo hoo. Better rest up, Barry, you wanted the job, you got it. We can only imagine what will happen on your watch. God Bless our Republic. (we are not a Democracy)

Mark| 4.6.09 @ 10:40PM

"Within a decade, the demand will be for churches to perform same - sex marriages or lose their right to exist in this nation."

Yes, the old slippery slope argument. The writer , however, fails to identify a single person favoring same sex marriage who also favors compelling churches to perform same-sex marriages. This is simply religious paranoia.

Also, those making the slippery slope argument usually fail to tell us what is so horrible about same sex marriage in and of itself--aside from the fact that it will presumably lead to some absurdly improbable situation where all heterosexuals are sent to concentration camps by the gay mafia.

What is it about granting equal rights to gay couples that is so horrible? As another commentator pointed out, there is nothing so "radical" about the notion.

And note one thing: gay marriage and support for gay legal equality continues to gain public support. Statistician Nate Silver predicts gay marriage will be legal in every state in 20 years becuase majorities will favor it everywhere.

Mark| 4.6.09 @ 10:45PM

"Wait a generation or two. That's when the damage becomes apparent. Look at abortion, cohabitating/ having children out of wedlock...etc "

Oh, gays are responsible for this? You theo-conservatives are nuts. The idea that 2% of the population controls the country and is responsible for its alleged moral decline is an nutty as anything in Mein Kampf.

Big Leo| 4.6.09 @ 11:00PM

"The writer , however, fails to identify a single person favoring same sex marriage who also favors compelling churches to perform same-sex marriages. " Our church was recently put under pressure to perform a gay marriage, and the people demanding it withdrew their support. The Asbury Center, a religious retreat that rents part of its facility, was successfully sued because it wouldn't accommodate a gay wedding. Our church accepts a token payment for expenses for NA, AA, and other charitable organizations to use our facilities. This could easily lead to a lawsuit demanding that our facilities to be used for a gay wedding. So never say never.

The moral damage to our society, such as abortion, illegitimacy, etc. and gay marriage are all a part of an attack on traditional morality that has been going on for forty years now. All of these problems are merely symptoms of a socially irresponsible morality that puts the individual's whims and desires at the apex of determining factors of behavior rather than the social good.

Homosexuality, in classical developmental theory, is a form of arrested development. Early adolescence is a time when the self-directed ego becomes outer-directed. However, in the initial stages, it is chiefly directed at persons who are the same. Increased maturity brings the ability to develop effective societal and personal relationships with the other, including the opposite sex. Homosexuality is a state of being stuck at an incomplete stage of personality development. This isn't my idea, it's Eric Ericson's, who knew more about personality development than anyone in the last fifty years.

Peter Damian| 4.6.09 @ 11:08PM

In the 1970's and 1980's, the Catholic Left assured the Faithful that Homosexuals were capable of celibate and sacrificial service in the Priesthood and aggressively promotes homosexuals vocations . 30 years later we have billions of dollars in lawsuits and widespread clerical corruption that drove out normal Men from formation. This obscenity is coupled the open disobedience in presenting the teachings of the church with widespread deliberate and stupid lies about the nature of the crimes. The Left and their pervert cohorts are lining up their forces to usurp Marriage for it's eventual discredit.

Big Leo| 4.6.09 @ 11:13PM

Peter,
Good post. The recruitment of homosexuals for the priesthood was one of the most disastrous moves the Catholic church ever made. A phenomenal percentage of the pederast priests came from just two seminaries that were most active in recruiting homosexuals.

jharp| 4.6.09 @ 11:14PM

Big Leo| 4.6.09 @ 11:00PM

"The writer , however, fails to identify a single person favoring same sex marriage who also favors compelling churches to perform same-sex marriages. "

Our church was recently put under pressure to perform a gay marriage
____________________________________

Good grief. The stupidity and utter nonsense that is posted here is a disgrace to the inteeligence of America,

Are you aware, Big Leo, of the Catholic church refusing to marry someone who has suffered a divorce. It's been going on for as long as I can remember and I'm 48. Or their refusal to marry a Jew and a Catholic.

Are most Americans really this stupid or is it just the conservative movement?

Angel| 4.6.09 @ 11:18PM

Mark, couldn't resist, could you? The old Hitler accusation comes back to haunt--you liberals never disappoint, and never fail to amuse. You all are so danged predictable. Once government gets involved, it will treat our clergys' sermons as hate speech. This is already happening in Canada, don't ya know? No more freedom of religion for us--marriage is most definitely the hill on which to fight and die.

MT| 4.6.09 @ 11:21PM

Liberals are stupid and debauched. NAMBLA is composed of liberals--need I say more?

jharp| 4.6.09 @ 11:45PM

Angel| 4.6.09 @ 11:18PM

"marriage is most definitely the hill on which to fight and die."

By all means go for it. I cannot encourage you enough. It's a loser just like the rest of the conservative losing positions.

And I'll ask it again. How that been going for ya lately?

You losers can't even win when you win. Control of Congress for 14 years. The White House for 8.

And all you've got to show for it is economic ruin.

No prayer in schools.
Abortion legal in 50 states.
Intelligent design resigned to the garbage bin.

Get used to it. You lost. The liberals won.

MT| 4.6.09 @ 11:50PM

Proposition 8 in California! Widespread Minority support. LOL!!

Daphne| 4.6.09 @ 11:52PM

Have you visited your local NAMBLA center today, JHarp? How are all the boys, anyway?

Big Leo| 4.7.09 @ 12:01AM

The same type of people who are telling us that the churches won't be pressured to perform homosexual marriages or rent their facilities for same are the same people who told us that the Civil Rights act wouldn't lead to racial quotas and the Equal Rights amendment wouldn't lead to gay marriage. Fool me once or twice, shame on you. Fool me three times, my bad.

Big Leo| 4.7.09 @ 12:04AM

. . . and furthermore, people are being fired, suspended from college programs, and subjected to harassment because of religious opposition to gay marriage. In Canada and Europe, pastors are being fined or jailed for simply preaching the Bible's view on homosexuality. So don't tell me these things won't happen. They already are happening.

jharp| 4.7.09 @ 1:02AM

Big Leo| 4.7.09 @ 12:04AM

". . . and furthermore, people are being fired, suspended from college programs, and subjected to harassment because of religious opposition to gay marriage. In Canada and Europe, pastors are being fined or jailed for simply preaching the Bible's view on homosexuality"

So now Big Leo has become the Big Liar.

Your post is a lie. And you know it.

That's nice that you are so concerned about Canada and Europe but what in the hell does that have to do with us. Are you familiar with gun laws in Canada and Europe?

And you are a blatant liar. Please cite on example of a pastor being fired for simply preaching the Bible's view on homosexuality in Canada or Europe.

You are a lying disgusting vile piece of slime.

Big Leo| 4.7.09 @ 1:15AM

www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article.php?ArticleID=214 Here's one. There's plenty more, but you can do your own homework. All you can do is insult. You can't even look up a simple news report to confirm that everything I say is absolutely true. You never post facts, you never post reasonable arguments. What a waste of space!

Big Leo| 4.7.09 @ 1:20AM

. . . and here's one more.

WND Exclusive
Government to pastor: Renounce your faith!
Now banned from expressing moral opposition to homosexuality
Posted: June 09, 2008
10:00 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A Canadian human rights tribunal ordered a Christian pastor to renounce his faith and never again express moral opposition to homosexuality, according to a new report.

In a decision dated May 30 in the penalty phase of the quasi-judicial proceedings run by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson was banned from expressing his biblical perspective of homosexuality and ordered to pay $5,000 for "damages for pain and suffering" as well as apologize to the activist who complained of being hurt.

According to a report from Pete Vere at the Catholic Exchange, the penalty could foreshadow the possible fate of the Rev. Alphonse de Valk, who also cited the biblical perspective on homosexuality in the nation's debate over same-sex "marriage" and now faces HRC charges.

Boisson wrote a letter to the editor of his local Red Deer, Alberta, newspaper in 2002 denouncing the advance of homosexual activism as "wicked" and stating: "Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights."

De Valk is a Catholic priest who faces similar charges. Now that you are revealed for what you are, a liar and a lazy one at that, I am not responding to your posts further. You are a sorry excuse for a rational human being.

jharp| 4.7.09 @ 1:27AM

Big Leo,

You are a vile repulsive lying piece of scum.

Free Speech in Sweden
From the desk of Filip van Laenen on Sat, 2005-12-03 13:31

Last Tuesday, Högsta domstolen, the Swedish Supreme Court, acquitted the Lutheran pastor Åke Green, who had been prosecuted on charges of inciting hatred towards gays. Two years ago, in a sermon entitled “Is Homosexuality Genetic or an Evil Force that Plays Mind Games with People?” Green said: “Sexual abnormalities are a deep cancerous tumor in the whole of society.” He added that “sexually twisted people” rape animals and children and opined that homosexuality was not something one was born into, but rather the result of choice.

MT| 4.7.09 @ 2:39AM

JHarp, Big Leo absolutely wiped the floor up with your sorry behind! You asked for proof of Christian clergy persecution in Canada--and he gave it to you--twice!! What do you do? You change the subject. Big Leo is right, you are a sorry excuse for a human being. Stupid liberal lying fool, I would say NAMBLA is comprised of 'sexually twisted people', wouldn't you, pervert scum?

Tony in Central PA| 4.7.09 @ 8:52AM

In Canada, a priest, pastor or imam telling his listeners that same sex marriage is contrary to God's plan willlikely find himself before a human rights tribunal. He can face fines and imprisonment. This would have sounded like something out of science fiction even just ten years ago.
So much for the argument from the same sex marriage proponents of just " give us what we want and we'll be happy ". Past experience tells us demands always follow demands.
The argument is that, relatively speaking, same sex marriage is the same is intersex marriage. I suppose a few decades of brainwashing have led many people to accept this falsehood, but the differences are so many and so profound as to make explanation a useless exercise.
G.K. Chesterton once said that when orthodoxy becomes optional, sooner or later it will be proscribed. Our neighbor to the north has reminded us of this.

Pingback| 4.7.09 @ 9:43AM

Marriage Roundup « Gabriel Malor links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

    Marriage Roundup Last week the Iowa Supreme Court decided that civil marriage must be available for gay couples as well as straight. Here’s what people are saying. Robert Stacy McCain argues that marriage is important enough that conservatives should put their foot down and say “No further.” A taste: We know, however, that their latest demand is never their last demand.…

rodan32| 4.7.09 @ 11:15AM

So to jharp; it doesn't really matter to me if we win or lose this fight, as long as I take a stand for what's right. I believe gay marriage is wrong, and I believe marriage between a man and a woman is right. I'll take my stand here, and if that means I'm a political outcast, c'est la vie.

jharp| 4.7.09 @ 11:47AM

"I believe gay marriage is wrong"

That's fine. So don't marry a gay person.

Looks like you folks who are choosing to "die on the hill" just got a step closer to defeat. Ha, and it wasn't even "activist" judges this time.

"Vermont today became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a Legislature’s vote. The Burlington Free Press reports that Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry was overturned by a 23-5 vote in the state Senate and 100-49 in the House."

tim maguire| 4.7.09 @ 12:47PM

This article has a problem with its foundational assumptions. Some conservatives are not merely "wholly persuaded by the arguments of same-sex marriage advocates," or been easily defeated by unwillingness to fight. Rather, they recognize that support for gay marriage is perfectly in keeping with conservative principles. It is those who oppose it whose conservative bona fides are to be questioned. Opponents of gay marriage seek to give the government a power of such invasiveness that they would blanche at the thought in nearly any other context. But liberty and limited government principles be damned! If it hurts teh gays, we're for it!

EvilRedScandi | 4.7.09 @ 12:48PM

I find it breathtakingly ironic how "Conservatives" will deeply embrace the Progressive idea of social engineering through government policy when it involves promoting marriage through tax breaks. I find it breathtakingly funny when it comes back to bite them on the ass due to that inconvenient "equal protection" clause. I'm surprised they dislike Obama so much - when it comes to the philosophy of how to govern, they have more in common with him than they do with the framers of the Constitution.

BlackRedneck| 4.7.09 @ 2:07PM

Gay marriage is one of many proxy wars against the church. Please note that people laughed when I argued that the tobacco cases would provide the basis for fat people to sue McDonald's and Ms. Fields. Once you broke that barrier, there would be a flood of lawsuits against the food industry and others. The only industry that has held the line is the gun industry. Why? Because the NRA fought tooth and nail against the anti-gun idiots. The NRA recognized that they were at war with the gun grabbers, organized, and FOUGHT. The NRA fought and they won. Big Tobacco has become a giant moneypit for state governments and lefty causes.

As the saying goes, "the devil's greatest achievement was to convince the world that he does not exist." Likewise, the ACLU greatest achievement was to convince the public that it's goals are not anti-religious. However, gay marriage has exploded that lie. It's undeniable that their policies will destroy church doctrine. It's not a bug, it's a feature. The ACLU and the left have been engaged in an all out war against the church for years but Christians, as a group, have not been engaged in the battle. It is a multi-front war-- the attack on the boy scouts, gay marriage, gay adoption (closing down the adoption agency run by the Catholic church because they did not allow gay couples to adopt), forcing eHarmony to open a gay division, suing photographer for not working a gay wedding, the Freedom of Choice Act, etc. Of course, the ACLU uses legal blackmail to do the bulk of its work i.e. threaten groups with years of legal costs, bad publicity, and attacks unless they give in to the ACLU's demands. So, I say we adopt the NRA model, and fight. It is a hill worth dying on.

seekeronos| 4.7.09 @ 3:21PM

Nominal Christians represent some 65-70% of the population, with truly obedient, Bible-believing, following-Jesus-as-Lord Christians probably around 10% of the total population, vs. the 2-3% of the US population that is LGBT.

Between those two margins, is the great swath of the "undecided" masses (or perhaps more accurately, the *unconcerned* masses) who must be courted... and ultimately energized in the fight for the family.

And Christians must present their case to this public, which has been sold "hook, line and stinker" on the notion that gay marriages and gay family constructs are healthy and viable alternatives to the traditional family.

That being said, as proponent of small-gov't federalism and state's rights... I really think that the federal government should keep silence on the matter and let the states decide what is in their best interests for their populations in re marriage rights.

Ideally, the churches should certainly fight to preserve their rights to honor and sanctify marriages according to their own doctrines and not be forced at the point of judicial writ and penalty to alter their practices in accordance with Man's thinking.

At the same time, if a state wishes to guarantee to both LGBTs and Christians the right to such civil partnerships with the same certain accepted legal protections and advantages, or limit them to partnerships of men only with women, that is something that should be permitted Constitutionally.

Bear in mind that there is no "right to marriage" in the Constitution: at the time of its framing, the state held no interest in defining marriage, or the licensing (granting permissions) for the same.

If anything, the "Compromise of Gamaliel" I see coming will be to remove marriage from its tax-shelters altogether, since the government tends to lose revenue when people marry, if I am not mistaken.

MT| 4.7.09 @ 4:50PM

The government must stay the heck out of my church. Mess with freedom of religion and there will be a problem.

GW| 4.7.09 @ 7:58PM

"Gay marriage" will be shot down in Iowa like it was in California and any other state it has been voted on. It is MY RIGHT to DISCRIMINATE against any behavior I deem PERVERSE. Considering the government of the United States is OF the PEOPLE, "gay marriage" will not be largely tolerated.

Gardener| 4.7.09 @ 8:47PM

Despite all the arguing that has ensued - y'all realize that Christianity and Islam have one thing in common? Both religions are against homosexuality.

WHo'da thunk..... Common ground.

Cookie| 4.7.09 @ 9:20PM

Well, at least Islam gets one thing right. The behind is an EXIT not an entrance.

Erasmus| 4.8.09 @ 10:29AM

For the last time, the state is not going to tell churches who they can and can't marry. For instance, Catholic churches don't perform weddings unless both people are Catholic OR if the non-Catholic spouse agrees that any children produced will be raised Catholic. Not to mention, Catholic Churches won't perform weddings of people who had been divorced. Now, can you produce for me a single lawsuit or legal action taken against the Catholic Church for denying some people the right to have a Catholic wedding? Any at all? If a church wants to deny someone the right to marry, for whatever reason, that's their choice. However, in the case of gay marriage, the gay couple will either enjoy the rights to a civil ceremony that straight couples have, or will go to a church that doesn't have a hangup about it. The beauty of this is that your church maintains the right to be intolerant twits and gay couples can still get married.

Erasmus| 4.8.09 @ 10:31AM

One more thing, marriage is a civic institution. A priest or a minister or internete minister or justice of the peace serves as a legal witness by performing the ceremony, but a valid marriage in the eyes of the state has absolutely NOTHING to do with the blessing of a church.

BobN| 4.8.09 @ 12:37PM

If the only thing "conservatives" are opposed to is marriage, why do you fight CUs?

otto| 4.8.09 @ 12:41PM

Yes that's what we need is many more defeats against the march of progress: votes for women, desegregation, gay rights. The right is losing this argument just like we lost the Schiavo argument and the abortion argument and in the process were marginalizing ourselves. If no one has any problem with that ok.

Mark Entel| 4.8.09 @ 12:52PM

Our nation's governing system was founded, structurally, to express both majoritarian and counter-majoritarian values. You can call the courts anti-democratic but counter-majoritarian better describes the value of a judiciary removed (at least formally) from the political process. Argue for direct democracy if you wish, but the will of the majority is not the only value given weight by America's founding documents. There is no real "final word" on an issue, rather these competing institutions (voters, legislative bodies, courts) compete with each other as a societal conflict is slowly resolved.

Mark| 4.8.09 @ 12:53PM

So much talk about voters and an activist judiciary. It's intellecutally (and historically) dishonest. We do not live in a direct democracy. The Founders would blanch in horror at the thought. Most of them took a dim view of the average voter. We live in a representative democracy/Republic. We elect officials to represent us. That said, the California legislature voted twice for marriage equality bills, only to be vetoed by an activist governor. Same in Vermont, but the legislature overrode it. It's time to stop pretending that 'the people' are having their will thwarted. Even with Prop 8, 52 percent of a few million votes, in a state that has 38 million people, and it's considered 'the will of the people'? Dude, the will of the people for half this country in the early 1860s was to maintain slavery. Guess we should have bowed to that. Or how about segregation? Oh, those activist Supreme Court judges! It's a fallacious argument. The people of Vermont have spoken, through their elected officials. As will soon the people of New York, New Jersey, Maine, New Hampshire . . . It is no coincidence that justice is being served most where this country is oldest, where the whole American ideal began (with Iowa a welcome anomaly). Today's hill to die on is tomorrow's flat land. Gettysburg was a hill to die on, too, and the Confederate army did.

Erasmus| 4.8.09 @ 1:19PM

BobN, the whole "civil unions v. marriage" semantics debate seems either to be a distraction or irrelevant. On one hand, the most vociferous opponents of gay marriage appear to object to ANY attempt by the state to treat gay couples as being equal to straight couples. On the other hand, some people say "give the gay couples the benefits of marriage, but call it a Civil Union instead".

Two problems I see:

1. If you press the anti-gay marriage opponents, they'll be likely to say that they oppose Civil Unions for gay couples as well. We've already seen this in Colorado, where a Republican legislator who had previously floated a Civil Union alternative to gay marriage suddenly changed his tune when a Democratic legislator said "fine, I'll sponsor such a bill".

2. If you're giving the exact same state benefits of marraige (inheritance, visitation, property rights, probate, etc) to gay couples under the name "Civil Unions", then you have a de facto "separate but equal" setup here. It is akin to the old Plessy v. Ferguson logic that said "well, we don't allow balck children to attend integrated schools, but we aren't violating their rights by making them attend segregated schools"

I'm sorry, but the word "marriage" isn't the exclusive domain of the Church.

jshubbub| 4.8.09 @ 1:48PM

That's right, Mr. McCain. Continue to stumble into the surf to battle the tide. Someday those waves will capitulate.

Tim| 4.8.09 @ 3:39PM

If one is resolved to die, wouldn't a hole be a better spot to pick than a hill?

beth| 4.8.09 @ 4:41PM

Perhaps this is unrelated to your content, but your top and right hand banner ads are for homosexual sex-energy patches.

DH| 4.8.09 @ 5:09PM

In an article with over 1,000 words, the author doesn't offer a single piece of evidence to show that heterosexual marriage --- either the "institution" or the marriages themselves --- would actually be harmed in any way.

It's likely that he simply doesn't care about this paucity, preferring to play the "will of the voters" card. (Tyranny of the majority is just fine, so long as you're in the majority, no?)

el pinche| 4.8.09 @ 5:32PM

Who do i s*ck off to find the gloryhole in this place?

This is a lame gay site. It's just a bunch of whiny fat-arsed rightwing loonies. I'm not that kinky.

archer | 4.8.09 @ 5:34PM

That ad with the naked muscle-boy is EVER so adorable.

Brucie| 4.8.09 @ 6:21PM

Oh god, that Red Energy Patch guy is making me sooo horny. I definitely would have thought this is a pro-homo site. huh.

tranny chick| 4.8.09 @ 6:26PM

Really love the homoerotic ads up at the top...

Pingback| 4.8.09 @ 6:27PM

Making it Simple « Paul Richardson links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

8, 2009 Peter Sagal sums up the whole gay marriage thing quite easily.  If only common sense reigned… I was very happy to see that Vermont legalized same sex marriage, although of course, some  people are very  unhappy. There are three arguments against same-sex marriage, summarized thusly: 1) God hates it. 2) It’s against thousands of years of tradition. 3) It’ll ruin marriage for everyone else. To…

Queenie| 4.8.09 @ 9:56PM

Queer trolls? Who knew? LOL

Adam| 4.8.09 @ 11:06PM

When did God tell you he hated same sex marriage? The last time He sat down with me for a chat, He told me he was just fine with it. He told me that He put gay people on earth to see just how bigoted some of His followers would be. He also told me that He would have something to say to them about their hate when they met Him face to face. He reminded me that He dosen't make mistakes, and He wished that His followers would remember that.

Pingback| 4.9.09 @ 11:39AM

I caught the gay! « Mimesis et Catharsis links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Catharsis Just another WordPress.com weblog « I’m Back! I caught the gay! So one of my favorite bloggers, The Anonymous Liberal, talked about a post from conservative blogger Robert Stacey McCain: “Yet if the defense of traditional marriage — an ancient and honorable institution — is not a “hill worth dying on,” what is? In every ballot-box fight to date,…

Pingback| 4.9.09 @ 3:01PM

Falsity: Not a Hill Worth Dying On links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Falsity: Not a Hill Worth Dying On Home About Essays Media BHTV Marketplace Subscribe Will Wilkinson Falsity: Not a Hill Worth Dying On by Will Wilkinson on April 9, 2009 If I read him right, Robert Stacy McCain’s argument for state-enforced marriage inequality (“a hill to die on”!) is that there is a DEEP TRUTH  about inequalities between men and women that must continue to be observed: Feminist ideologues…

jjUSA| 4.9.09 @ 3:27PM

Why is this an issue of the left?
I think ALL true conservatives should be taking up the cause of gay marriage (As a conservative quasi-libertarian.)
It is the rights of the individuals that we support as conservatives. Not the rights of powerful religious groups. We are supposed to be the ones that oppose the government intrusion into our lives remember? Yet here we are trying to overturn what should be decided on the state level.
An activist government for conservative means is every bit as evil as an activist government for conservative means.

Pingback| 4.9.09 @ 3:41PM

The Right and Same-Sex Marriage « Deanna’s Ramblings links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

The Right and Same-Sex Marriage « Deanna’s

Pingback| 4.9.09 @ 6:26PM

thomascwaters.com » Conservative’s Last Stand? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…passed by legislators or voted in by the public have been ruled unconstitutional. Having been given an inch, the radicals now attempt to take a mile. But this is a hill to die on. The American Spectator : Marriage: A Hill to Die On. http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/06/marriage-a-hill-to-die-on If you appreciate reading my posts, would you like to thank me with a coffee? Marriage Equality, general Civil…

OUCH!| 4.10.09 @ 4:14AM

And then God said to Adam, "Thy behind is an EXIT NOT AN ENTRANCE."

mwv| 4.10.09 @ 11:18AM

Great article. My comments are a bit off the subject but the subject but here goes:

I am so sick of gay people who see themselves as victims. I am so sick of gay people who are perpetually aggrieved. Affluent, educated white people in urban areas are HARDLY the most supressed group on earth. If you need government to justify your existence then you're as big a sissie as Barney Frank. As a gay man I wish more of us would grow up and realize that behaving like children and throwing tempter tantrums and marching in silly "pride" parades (which make me wanna barf) isn't really helping our cause much as far as helping mainstream America to become more "tolerant." Not to mention our mainstream media that would have you believe we're a heartbeat away from segregated drinking fountains and pink triangles. Tolerance is a two-way street, we really have to start looking in the mirror rather than pompously asking "Whats the matter with Kansas? Don't you stupid people get it??!!!" Oh yeah, THAT'S the way to educate people and raise awareness.

MT| 4.12.09 @ 8:15PM

MWV--YOU ROCK! Thanks for your great comment. Appreciate your reasonableness.

Pingback| 4.14.09 @ 5:14AM

Twilight in Vermont links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…The question for marital traditionalists then became: Why deny gays and lesbians the opportunity to enter into obligations too many of us in the heterosexual majority no longer want for ourselves? Why die on a hill over the hospital visitation rights of two middle-aged gay men? Torn from a consistent sexual ethic in which marriage differs in some significant way from a love affair, the question becomes…

Pingback| 4.22.09 @ 8:14PM

The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Let Gays Have Marriage; We’re Not Using It - updated links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Because considering the reaction to Carrie Prejean’s polite dissension, it soon won’t be. UPDATED: R.S. McCain’s article at The American Spectator from earlier this month, Marriage: A Hill to Die On, is well worth a read.  (h/t Riehl) I don ‘t precisely fit into any of the categories he provides for conservatives who have given up on the issue; I guess the closest fit would be…

Pingback| 4.22.09 @ 11:32PM

The Greenroom » Forum Archive » ‘Forbidding to Marry’ (Reply to Laura) links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…the world one “I do” at a time. UPDATE: Is this a harmonic convergence or what? While I was writing this, it appears that Laura was updating her post to link my American Spectator column, “Marriage: A Hill to Die On.” Blowback Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with…

ReactiveRadon| 4.23.09 @ 2:25AM

From a commenter above:

"Yes, the old slippery slope argument. The writer , however, fails to identify a single person favoring same sex marriage who also favors compelling churches to perform same-sex marriages. This is simply religious paranoia."

When abortion was first made mandatory for all fifty states, nobody thought that Catholic hospitals would have to provide abortions, or face closure. But that's exactly the choice Catholic hospitals may soon choose.

To my knowledge, no prominent gay activist is asking that Churches grovel in that way. Yet.

You are not paranoid when you know your enemies.

Pingback| 4.23.09 @ 3:18AM

Well the wait wasn’t long « DaTechguy’s Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…or Miss 1919 Reds USA? Meanwhile the debate continues the Greenroom has the funniest headline: Let Gays Have Marriage; We’re Not Using It While the other McCain at the American Spectator has the most profound headline: Marriage: A Hill to Die On Works for me. Tags: I wish I said that, miss california This entry was posted on April 23, 2009 at 2:17 am and is filed under internet/free speech, opinion/news. You…

Jane | 4.23.09 @ 6:30AM

http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/files/letter-to-rep.-donovan-re-bill-899-04-20-09.pdf

Must read to understand the specific reasons we have to tread carefully before we fully install gay marriage rights...

KyMouse| 4.23.09 @ 9:51AM

So much has indeed changed in just a generation. When I was a teenager in the mid-'60s, couples who lived together without a marriage license were "shacking up," as in doing something trashy. My grandparents called it "living in sin."
But today, a close relative of mine who is a lay preacher in a liberal denomination has two daughters who are doing exactly that, and he either can't or won't say anything about it to them, perhaps because he and his wife did the same thing before they were married. And now, a young cousin of mine has sent a cheery letter to my mother, telling her of his plans for after graduations this summer, which include "moving in" with his current girlfriend. Now, there's some good news!!!! He probably can't imagine that there was a time when such arrangements were seen as irresponsible, sinful and likely to cause risk of heartbreak, disease and/or unwed pregnancy to the young folks involved (or that my mother would not be thrilled for him). As Dr. Laura has often said, "At least birds are smart enough to make a nest before they lay their eggs."

syn| 4.23.09 @ 9:55AM

As a 47 yr old woman who has lived a lifetime of having sex with whatever and whoever anywhere anytime I must say life WILL end up hollow and empty; one of my former lovers also observed the same.."a lifetime of sex and what do I have?"

At the end of the day, sexual liberation is not at liberating and, even less fulfilling than what populist culture believes.

Actually, I think people who advocate free-for-all sex are people who don't have sex, are sexually uptight, impotent and need to project their problems onto those in monogamous and sexually-satisfying relationships.

And the condom thing...seriously, anyone who promotes condoms are definitely NOT having sex as anyone who has sex understands that condoms interfere with the insensitivity factor; the condom may be carried in wallet however as the most recent STD rate indicates where 1 in 4 females age 12 to 19 are infected with one form of STDS or another it confirms the fact condoms are not being worn; it is absurd to believe condoms prevent transmission of STDS.

After a lifetime of free sex I wish I were married, in a monogamous relationship because the alternative is emptiness, I am here to say to the kiddies that I do not wish my sexually free life on anyone, it is a miserable way to spend remaining years alone knowing your whole life was just one empty screw after another.

syn| 4.23.09 @ 10:12AM

One last thing, those who engage in homosexual acts are not banned from marrying a person of the opposite sex therefore the initial premise that homosexual right to marry is a fallacy.

Homosexuals have married and do marry since the dawn of marriage and even have children and divorce then marry again. For example, if Gov McGreevy had been denied the right to marry, twice, then there would be substance to the argument that homosexuals are banned from marriage. Thus far, I know of no case in which a homosexual was denied the right to marry.

Stop saying that homosexuals are banned from marriage, this is not true and it makes those who do repeat the lie come off as irrational and insane.

KyMouse| 4.23.09 @ 11:02AM

God bless you, syn. There are a lot of us in the "sadder but wiser" club, and plenty more who won't admit it. I'm involved in a pro-life ministry, and I see so many young folks who have bought into the free-sex lie, only to find that it has price tags they never dreamed of. I'm reminded of a scene in an old Andy Griffith show, in which a hobo tried to tell Andy that it was okay for Opie to skip school to go fishing. Andy looked at a fishing lure while he told the man that kids will often grab for something attractive and shiny, only to find that there is a hook inside, waiting to hurt them. There are a lot of us who wish we'd heard that long ago.

Ben| 4.23.09 @ 12:28PM

The fight for SSM has nothing to do with wanting "marriage," but everything to do with trying to force acceptance and homosexuality on society. If you ask folks in Massachusetts how SSM has affected them, they will tell you the biggest changes aren't the marriages themselves (there haven't been too many of those), but rather the secondary effects, such as schools that now promote gay propaganda with abandon. If parents complain about their kindergarteners being introduced to the idea of homosexuality, they are told to stuff it because SSM is now the law.

If any of you have read the Narnia series by C.S. Lewis, you are familiar with the final book, "The Last Battle". We now find ourselves at the stable door -- we must fight, for giving up is immoral and unthinkable, but lose we shall. At least in this life.

Pingback| 4.23.09 @ 1:02PM

Domain free Name - Vitter opposes prosecutions of terror interrogators; Cao, Landrieu links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Domain Name Seizure Legal Battle Over Online Gambling Jeopardizes Free Speech Frankfort, KY - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), and Marriage: A Hill to Die On - Spectator.org Back in the 1970s, William F. Buckley Jr. was invited to debate feminist author Germaine Greer at the Oxford Union, but found that he and Greer were unable to agree on the wording of the…

Pingback| 4.23.09 @ 4:16PM

Domain free Name - Marriage: A Hill to Die On - Spectator.org « Domains Desired links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

« Domains Desired Domains Desired « Buy Domain - Susan Boyle fans turn to cybersquatting - Telegraph.co.uk Domain free Name - Marriage: A Hill to Die On - Spectator.org Marriage: A Hill to Die On - Spectator.org Back in the 1970s, William F. Buckley Jr. was invited to debate feminist author Germaine Greer at the Oxford Union, but found that he and Greer were unable to agree on the wording of the…

KarenT| 4.24.09 @ 1:56AM

Not long ago the French government decided against legalization of same-sex marriage. Their decision was based upon placing the needs of children over the aspirations of adults.

In this thread, most of the comments have revolved around adults rather than children. With all the evidence we now have that societies do not do well when children are raised without fathers, do we really want to further entrench the idea that any two loving adults are equivalent to a mother and father in the eyes of a child? Won't this give some fathers an excuse to leave their families if their children will have loving grandparents, etc.?

Statistically, children do much better when raised with both their biological parents. This ideal cannot always be met. It has been downgraded in societal importance over recent decades for reasons having little to do with gay marriage.

But it seems very risky to future generations to make recognition of this ideal "hate speech".

whatdoyouthink| 4.24.09 @ 10:38AM

Homosexuality is condemned in both Testaments as a sin against a Holy God. It also says we are all sinners, but reading what Jesus said about marriage in general will show you what he defined as marriage.
When the Pharisees questioned Him,
Matthew 19:4-6 says, “4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause (that they are male and female) shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together (a man and a wife), let not man put asunder.” Jesus went back to the Creators’ design for marriage and it’s:
1. Participants (male and female)
2. Practicality (leave father and mother)
3. Purpose (the two shall be one flesh)
4. Prohibition (Do not put asunder what God joined together. God did not put male/male, or female/female together)
5. Principle (as His will was for it to be as in the beginning)
Jesus believed the book of Genesis. He speaks of creation of the world (Mark 13:19), of man (Matthew 19:4), and of the marriage of Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:5-6). He also spoke of the destruction of the Sodomites’ cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:28-32; Matthew 10:15; 11:24; Mark 6:11). If there had been 5 couples in a loving married homosexual or heterosexual relationship in that city, hundreds of thousands would not have been destroyed. Ten righteous souls is all that were needed to spare the city.
You can't separate OT from NT teachings.
Jesus is the Creator of all and the very one who instituted marriage. Marriage is the picture of Christ and His Bride (the Church) using the same compassion. “31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery (or revelation of God): but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33
let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.” Ephesians 5:31-33
Gay marriage would make Christ a spiritual homosexual. That would be blasphemy.
God who in the beginning established His directive will, made male and female. Adam said, “this is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man. Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife (woman) and they shall be one flesh.” Genesis 2:23-24
The homosexual lobby wants homosexual marriage to be accepted on the same level as heterosexual marriage. It's not about equal rights, (I am not opposed to civil union protection under law,) it's about forced acceptance. They want anyone who speaks against it to be sanctioned, ( see hate-crime legislation and the photography co. in Arizona forced to pay $6,000 for refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony). They want to take rights away from parents who are morally against it being taught to their children. (see what's going on in Mass.) They want doctors to be forced to inseminate lesbian couples. They want to close religious based adoption agencies (all ready happened). There is intolerance and open hatred toward my religious beliefs (see what is happening to Miss California), just because I think it is unacceptable. I don't hate anybody. That is the great gift of a Chris- like heart. Jesus asked God to forgive the men that were killing him. We as Christians, following his example, can disagree with some one and still love them.

whatdoyouthink| 4.24.09 @ 10:42AM

oops, ... CHRIST-LIKE heart.
I don't know about Chris' heart:-)

whatdoyouthink| 4.24.09 @ 10:47AM

oops,... a Christ-like heart
I don't know about Chris' heart:-)

SCTexas| 4.28.09 @ 1:45AM

KyMouse, it's funny you mention Dr. Laura and her stance against "living in sin." Didn't she divorce at a young age, break up a 20 yr marriage, shack up with the man and then try to have kids out of wedlock with him?

Pingback| 5.1.09 @ 1:33PM

The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Why Isn’t Carrie Prejean Mrs. USA? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…party, I’ll ask them. Ms. Yockey is a friend of mine, although I strongly disagree with her support for same-sex marriage. Miss Prejean is on my side of the argument. I’ve called the marriage issue “A Hill to Die On” for conservatives, and I’m not budging. However, even if we dismiss Miss Prejean’s breast implants as morally neutral, if she wants to advocate marriage, why not…

Pingback| 5.2.09 @ 7:43AM

The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Feminism, ‘Equality’ and Gay Rights links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…think we can hold the top of the hill, how the hell does he expect us to hold the bottom of it?” Conservatives cannot surrender the high ground in this argument and expect to win. And marriage is a hill to die on. Blowback Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise…

Pingback| 5.7.09 @ 1:14PM

The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Carrie Prejean and the Myth of ‘Homophobia’ links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…is that if somebody’s Googling for that stuff, would you rather them end up on one of those vicious left-wing sites? Or would you want them to come to a blog run by the author of “ Marriage: A Hill to Die On “? Mainly, though, it’s capitalist greed. Go ahead, hate me: Je suis une capitaliste! Because I’m on the cutting edge of blogospheric scamology, I’m getting lots of tips…

Pingback| 6.26.09 @ 1:15PM

ADF Alliance Alert » Marriage: A Hill to Die On links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Press Room Links Tag Archive All Posts Subscriptions Donate Powered By: Google  Wordpress Last Updated: Friday, June 26, 2009 10:13 AM EDT Marriage: A Hill to Die On Robert Stacy McCain, writing at the American Spectator: It is only by the activist rulings of judges and other officials, never at the behest of voters, that the radical crusade for same-sex marriage has advanced this far. We know which side the…

Pingback| 8.23.09 @ 7:52AM

Tips On How To Have A Successful Wedding Photography « Wicked Blogging links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

….   You may also want to check out: ellen tordesillas » Statements on Proclamation 1017 How to Have Soft Feet – Tips to Have Soft Feet – How to Get Soft … The American Spectator : Marriage: A Hill to Die On Underworld – Evolution 2006 Hindi Dubbed Movie Watch Online … over specifying functionality – Hendrik Swanepoel Write a comment Click here to cancel reply. Name…

Lingerie | 9.12.09 @ 11:01PM

sexy lingerie wholesale lingerie

Trackback| 12.14.09 @ 12:04AM

ma credit repair, on ma credit repair, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

So many different ideas listed here - amazing..

Trackback| 12.21.09 @ 5:27AM

massachusetts credit repair, on massachusetts credit repair, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

I will have to tell my friends about this website!

Pingback| 1.25.10 @ 4:49PM

Meghan McCain and GOP “Purity” | NewsReal Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…to swell its numbers…And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way. (For what it’s worth, there are several powerful cases to be made that marriage is indeed a hill to die on, but Meghan McCain’s simplistic arguments for same-sex marriage give no indication that she is even aware of them, much less has an answer to them.) Besides, conservative dissatisfaction…

Tony| 8.12.10 @ 12:21AM

That first paragraph is silly and inaccurate. I actually WATCHED the Buckley v Greer debate on PBS Station KQED ... twice!

The topic was, "Resolved: The Oxford Union supports the Women's Liberation Movement."

More Articles by Robert Stacy McCain

More Articles From Another Perspective

Not Super, But Pretty Good

June 18, 2013 | Aaron Goldstein

Sober-Minded

June 10, 2013 | Bill Croke

We Used to Call Him Baghdad Jim

June 7, 2013 | Paul Kengor

Christie and a Little History

June 5, 2013 | Kevin Mooney

The Forgotten Scandal

June 4, 2013 | Arnold S. Trebach

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/06/marriage-a-hill-to-die-on

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|97 comments

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord|99 comments

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield|56 comments

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut|24 comments

The Woman Who Wrote Liberty Valance

Bill Croke|31 comments

Not Super, But Pretty Good

Aaron Goldstein|19 comments

The Loss of Trust

Thomas Sowell|32 comments

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|88 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 6.18.13

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Are Young People Souring on Obama?

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.