The American Spectator : Another Peaceful Solution

Text Size

Another Peaceful Solution

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 6.17.10 @ 6:08AM

Proposition 8 and how Liberals always go too far.

WASHINGTON — The campaign to overturn in the courts California’s Proposition 8 is a perfect example of one of my most deeply held findings. Check that! Two of my most deeply held findings.

The first is that Liberals always go too far. They often start out with a good value, and drive it right off the cliff. For instance, they start with peace or justice or tolerance, and they go off the rails, usually getting the opposite. The second finding is that conservatives embrace greater diversity than Liberals. They are not ideologues but rather creatures of a philosophy that allows them more latitude than Liberals, who really are ideologues.

Let us dilate on the last matter first, as it really does shine a light on conservatism that is rarely noted. Two major legal minds of the conservative movement are on either side of the case over Proposition 8. One is Charles J. Cooper. He is a star in the conservative legal firmament, and he considers marriage to be a matter between a man and a woman. The other is Ted Olson. He considers it to be a matter of man and woman, woman and woman, and man and man. As he told the Washington Post the other day, discrimination on the basis of sex “is wrong and it’s hurtful, and I have never understood it.”

Both are friends of mine, and I respect both men’s views, though I side with Cooper. Moreover, I wonder about the Liberals who hold these values today. Where were they in, say, 1960 or 1950, or any time back when Gay Rights were unthinkable? But here we are in 2010, and the whole Liberal movement is with Ted. Okay, I am with them, to a point.

When I got to think about it, I thought it was wrong to deny a stable couple, whether woman and woman or man and man, certain rights. For instance, the right to visit a partner at hospital. I am told that right is often denied homosexuals. Or the right to enter into a health policy, the right to insurance or to inheritance. There are all sorts of rights and obligations that a couple wants to share and cannot. But with the simple expedient of a civil contract they can have them, so why bar people from this? They can live together. Why not help them live stably?

But this is not what the organized gays want. They want to claim that a union that cannot possibly have babies can. They could even raise babies that they have adopted, but they want to claim the usufructs for marriage. It is on the face of it a nonsense, but it is a nonsense that is claimed by gays. Why?

Is it just another example of the left going too far? Is it an example of the extremism of the left that we have seen so many times before, of the left taking a perfectly good institution and destroying it? Or is there a method to this madness?

Some believe that those wanting marriage extended to homosexuals want it because it is the first step in the effort to deny tax-exempt status to churches and synagogues. First, marriage is extended to homosexuals. Then religious organizations deny homosexuals the right to marry. Then these organizations have their tax-exempt status denied them for denying a right to homosexuals, namely the right to marry.

Thus while the organized gays are proceeding to demand the “right” to marry pursuant to a larger issue, perhaps we should short circuit this tricky business. We should privatize marriage. The state merely enforces contracts between two people, a man and a woman, a woman and woman, a man and a man. Meanwhile, the churches and synagogues extend the sacrament for those who want it. Get the state out of the love and sacrament business. Everyone is happy, no?

Which, come to think of it, introduces another of my deeply held findings. Conservatives have more peaceful solutions for social problems, some of which, the Liberals just make up.

About the Author

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (82) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Mystie| 6.17.10 @ 6:27AM

"For instance, the right to visit a partner at hospital. I am told that right is often denied homosexuals."

What the supporters of gay marriage won't tell you is that hospitals don't make the decision to bar "Steve" from visiting his comatose gay lover "Gary" in the hospital, it's Gary's mom and dad that don't want Steve at Gary's bedside. Gay marriage is seen by some as the solution, by allowing Steve to overrule the objections of Gary's mom and dad. A one-page healthcare power of attorney document would also accomplish the same thing.

ENOUGH ROPE| 6.17.10 @ 11:40AM

OBAMA, THE SMILING COBRA

JohnD| 6.17.10 @ 7:08AM

From a "Equal Protection" standpoint, there is no constitutional right to same sex marriage. The requirements that marriage be between one man and one woman applies equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals. Homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals, and heterosexuals cannot marry someone of the same sex. There is no argument that it violates equal protection.

Just because someone has an aversion to the opposite sex, doesn't mean they should be allowed to violate the law requiring marriage between opposite sex partners. I have an aversion to paying taxes, but that doesn't mean requiring me to pay them violates Equal Protection.

RCV| 6.17.10 @ 3:08PM

By that logic, the laws against inter-racial marriage should have been upheld because the requirement that marriage was restricted to people of the same race applied equally to both whites and non-whites.

JP| 6.17.10 @ 3:27PM

Nice strawman. But the ban on inter-racial marriages was declared unconstitutional many moons ago. By your logic, a man and his horse should be able to get married (or a man and his niece). Believe it or not, depsite the tolerance most people show, the gay life style is offensive to most people. In your line of thinking there should be no local prohibitions for anyone to get married to whomever or whatever they wish. Being black or Asian is not the same as being gay. Gay is a sexual proclivity. The Constitution is silent about homsexuality, homosexuality, and marriage. Marriage is a religious sacrament. Gay unions are not. Most states allow gay unions, but do not recognize gay marriage.

Tyre is right in that the Left always goes too far. Gay marriage has never been about gay rights. But it is all about destroying the Christian concept of marriage.

Chairman Nobomba| 6.17.10 @ 4:05PM

Mr. JP,
Your reply knocked RCV out of the park.

Stuart Koehl| 6.17.10 @ 4:32PM

I think you came close, but at the end, missed the point. Miscegenation laws established preconditions for marriage (stupid and ultimately parochial ones, at that, because interracial marriage does not seem to have been prohibited anywhere else in the Western world, and has been quite common from classical times through present--outside of the United States).

Gay marriage, on the other hand, requires a redefinition of marriage as something other than the conjugal union of a man and a woman. Race doesn't affect that defintion; sex does.

That's probably why the vast majority of black churchmen oppose gay marriage: they do not see it as a call for "equal rights", but rather as the establishment of a new right that overturns all commonly held assumptions about marriage.

In all of human history, there has never been a society anywhere in which marriage was defined as the union of two people of the same sex. Even in cultures where homosexuality was tolerated or even accepted, the term marriage was reserved for a legal union of a man and a woman. Even in polygamous societies, it was always a man and one or more women, but never one man and one or more other men.

In short, gay marriage requires the redefinition of a word to conform to a social agenda. Calling a dog a cat will not turn the dog into a cat. That's why there are distinct words for each. If gays want to give legal status to their sexual unions, then they need to come up with a new word for it. The word "marriage" is taken, sorry.

RCV| 6.17.10 @ 5:03PM

I agree that "marriage is a religious sacrament." And churches remain free to define its terms according to their tenets of faith. But when the state gets in the business of marriage, it CAN'T be religious or be based on religious tenets.

The ban on interracial marriage was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1967, not too many moons ago. And before it was struck down, marriage between blacks and whites was "offensive to most people" in the Southern states where it was banned. The Constitution isn't silent: it guarantees ALL citizens "equal protection of the law." Christians (and I happen to be one) can keep their "Christian concept of marriage" where it belongs -- in their churches.

Stuart Koehl| 6.17.10 @ 6:09PM

Hence my recommendation that the Churches simply get out of the business of administering marriages on behalf of the state. If everyone must first procure a civil marriage because Church marriage has no standing under law, then what the Churches do is their own business, and nobody else's.

vtwin| 6.17.10 @ 6:21PM

nuff said!

LiveFreeOrDie| 6.17.10 @ 6:54PM

"I agree that "marriage is a religious sacrament." And churches remain free to define its terms according to their tenets of faith. But when the state gets in the business of marriage, it CAN'T be religious or be based on religious tenets. "

Wrong. Marriage has existed in every society throughout history completely regardless of religion. No church anywhere can re-define the terms of marriage where it would actually apply. ie.. atheists marry without setting foot in any church or even believing in religion in any form.

Why don't you respond to your earlier post instead of trolling down the line looking for more spots to interject nonsense?

Christopher Holland| 6.18.10 @ 12:34AM

If two men or two women are allowed to marry, why not two men and one woman, or two men, one parrot and a donkey, or one man and many women? Gay marriage opens the door to a whole host of morally repugnant behaviours, of which paedophilia, child marriage and polygomy are the most likely suspects.

Once you start redrawing boundaries to behaviour, how and where do you stop? And if you decide it is a bad idea, how do you unscramble the egg and get back to where you were before? Gay marriage activists never ask these questions and never answer them - probably because they simple do not care. Gay marriage activists are social nihilists who do not care what damage they do as long as they are happy themselves.

The Emperor Caligula made his horse a senator. A great step forward for equality and freedom, but who really wants to live in a society run by Caligulas? The guy also practiced incest with his sisters - not exactly a role model that appeals to me. Equality and freedom is not an excuse for decadent and destructive behaviour that undermines and eventually destroys the society that we have to live in. The gay marriage lobby never bothers with that issue, it is reckless and dishonest.

Stuart Koehl| 6.18.10 @ 10:09AM

"The Emperor Caligula made his horse a senator. A great step forward for equality and freedom, but who really wants to live in a society run by Caligulas?"

I wouldn't mind a Senate full of horses, as opposed to one full of horses' hindquarters.

Jeff| 6.18.10 @ 4:55AM

Gay marriage has nothing to do with law or logic .It is about a cherished belief on the Left that they have a "right to be comfortable".People critcizing their life style choices makes them uncomfortable so they seek to strip the critics of their constitutional right to free speech.

This is the source of ALL political correctness and "tolerance". Leftists think that they have the right to not be criticized so they try to strip away everyone else's most important and fundamental rights of free speech and public comment so that they will not be made to feel uncomfortable.

Lee| 6.17.10 @ 7:12AM

Proposition 8 approved a Constitutional amendment for the state of California.

Perhaps state procedures are different than federal, but if opposing groups want it overturned, why not go the same route was was done to overturn the 18th Amendment (prohibition) by passing the 21st Amendment?

Oh, that's right. Because doing so would require approval by the voters. Voters who have seen the thug tactics used against supporters of Proposition 8 and would likely be even more strongly opposed to attempts to overturn it. Voters who have seen for themselves just how intolerant these "tolerant" people really are.

JimH| 6.17.10 @ 8:52AM

For the State the concept of marriage should be irrelevant other than for purposes of contract enforcement. All the State need concern itself about in marriage exists in a civil union. A civil union is all that should be on offer to anyone from the State and can be available to any voluntary arrangement that requests it. Marriage otherwise is a religious rite, like baptism. Who can be married and how should be defined by the church/temple/whatever where it would be performed.

JP| 6.17.10 @ 3:34PM

However, originally the Founders had not problem with individual states recognizing such obvious beneficial institutions as the family (a Christian idea of the family). The promotion of the family (and with it the Christian idea of marriage) were so obvious that no one ever claimed otherwise.

With the advent of co-habitation, illegitimate children, and all of the pathologies associated with them, allowing gay marriage will just be another nail in the coffin to the instiution of marriage. In Europe, that institution is about as dead as a door nail. Few in Europe ever get married anymore; fewer still have children. And from the recent news of the approaching EU fiscal crisis (too few young taxpayers, too many old retirees), one would think we over here could be 2 and 2 together.

We shall reap what we sow. Ted Olson is very wrong on this.

Derek Leaberry| 6.17.10 @ 8:59AM

Although I respect Mr. Tyrrell sticking up for a friend, I not only don't respect the views of Ted Olson, I view him as an enemy of conservatism. Olson needs to be destroyed and banished to the outer darkness.

darcy| 6.18.10 @ 4:56AM

So, we're sitting down to coffee and biscuits and the subject of Ted Olson comes up -- his surreal abandonment of moral norms several millennia in the making -- and we have to wonder: what the hell happened?

So here's my theory: he's pissed as all get out that God saw fit to take his beautiful, saintly wife, Barbara away from him on 9/11 -- and now he's out for vengeance.

We can talk this way around the coffee table, amongst ourselves. But dare we utter such a suspicion in public? Because surely it is most perplexing that a man of Ted Olson's stature, legal mind, and "reputation by association" with the lovely, conservative Barbara could devolve into the advocate for the slaying of society's very foundation that he's become.

Stuart Koehl| 6.18.10 @ 5:57AM

More likely is Olsen stands in the libertarian wing of the conservative movement, and has an expansive view of individual autonomy. His position is not too different from that of Barry Goldwater. The problem is, libertarianism is not really conservative, since true conservatism respects the organic institutions and practices of society, and tampers with them only with the greatest reluctance.

darcy| 6.18.10 @ 2:32PM

Of course, his probable Libertarianism, as you point out, would explain his actions, all my speculations aside. Nevertheless, at the heart of libertarianism there is a God issue, don't you think? as in, "I will be God and make my own rules, and so should we all."

I'd wager this is the impulse behind the thinking of most libertarians. And so as you say, it cannot be true conservatism since it readily abandons the tried and true traditions of the past under the guise of promoting maximum freedom and liberty, really just euphemisms for license -- as they use the terms -- which in truth is merely slavery of another kind: to ones passions. No, definitely not conservative.

Stuart Koehl| 6.18.10 @ 3:00PM

That depends on whether one is dealing with a libertarian or a libertine. Faith and libertarianism are not necessarily incompatible. A true libertarian might live in accordance with the doctrine that true belief cannot be coerced, and considers faith and morality to be internal matters beyond the scope of state intervention. While this is foolish, it does not prevent the libertarian himself from living in full accordance with an objective moral law or an explicit religious faith.

A libertine, on the other hand (and a good many professed libertarians really are just libertines) has precisely the "God problem" you describe.

darcy| 6.18.10 @ 7:59PM

"A true libertarian might live in accordance with the doctrine that true belief cannot be coerced, . . . While this is foolish . . . "

We're getting more than a bit tangential here, but not any less important for that. I prefer to take this up later, if you don't mind. Do you have a blog?

Stuart Koehl| 6.19.10 @ 3:24PM

No, but I am on Facebook, if you want to send me a message.

Stuart Koehl| 6.17.10 @ 9:21AM

Bob has it backwards: the Church should simply cease being an agent of the state in the administration of marriage. Presently, when a priest or minister officiates at a wedding, he is acting as a civil magistrate executing a marriage license. Through that action, he binds the couple in the whole web of rights, duties and obligations pertaining to marriage under civil law. His action is, at one level religious, but it predominantly legal.

Therefore, the Church becomes inextricably bound in the entire debate revolving around marriages--who can, who can't, and under what conditions.

This has not always been the case. In the pre-Constantinian period, the Church had no legal standing, and sacramental marriage was utterly distinct from legal marriage.

Even after Christianity was adopted by the Roman Empire in the 4th century, it was still necessary to obtain a civil marriage from a magistrate prior to presenting oneself in Church for a sacramental union. A Church marriage only became one of the criteria for recognition of a union as a legal marriage in the 6th century.

Because Church and civil marriage were separate and distinct, the Church was absolutely free to follow its own doctrine with regard to marriage and its disciplines. In the patristic period, marriage was held to be an indissoluable sacrament that transcended death; therefore a person could enter into only one sacramental marriage in a lifetime. In both the East and the West, the Church in principle upheld this ideal, and in the East, at least, did not perform "second marriages" or "remarriages" until the 9th century; rather, when confronted by the pastoral reality of people who wanted to remarry after widowhood, or after divorce, recognized civil marriages and focused entirely on the reintegration of the remarried into the Church through prayer and fasting.

In the 9th century, however, the Emperor Leo VI abolished civil marriage within the Roman Empire and turned total responsibility for administering marriage to the Church. The Church thus, for the first time, had to deal with the messy legal and social realities, including divorce and widowhood, the welfare of children, etc.

To protect the integrity of its doctrine of indissuability while meeting the pastoral needs of the faithful, the Eastern Churches devised a non-sacramental "Rite of Remarriage", which in effect took the place of a second civil marriage. Solemn and penitential in nature, it was explicitly a concession to human frailty and lacked the signs associated with sacramental marriage (in the Eastern Churches, the Crowning, the singing of certain prayers, and the sharing of the Eucharist).

Today, we seem to be entering a period where the general consensus on marriage that existed between the Church and the state has become irrevocably broken; i.e., there are fundamental differences between them regarding the nature and purpose of marriage, which in a secular society means, inevitably, that the state's understanding of marriage is going to prevail, and be enforced by coercive measures. We are reverting to the pre-Constantinian situation, where the Church has no legal standing and its doctrines are considered to be private matters (when they are not considered to be seditious).

The solution is a return to the pre-Constantinian practice of the Church; i.e., a Church marriage is a purely sacramental matter, subject to the doctrine and disciplines of the Church, but without legal standing. Legal recognition of marriage would revert to a purely civil matter. A couple who wanted to marry would have to get a license and go to a civil magistrate. If they then wanted their union sacramentalized, they would go to the Church. If they did not meet the Church's criteria for a sacramental wedding (e.g., both parties were of the same sex), there would be nothing the state could do about it, since the Church is a voluntary association protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

JP| 6.17.10 @ 3:57PM

Stuart,
Thanks for that outstanding history of Christian Marriage. But my point is more from a constitutional point of view. States were never barred from recognizing sacremental marriages. The Constitution was silent on this. And if states wished to recognize them, they could and did. Civil Union were suppose to be the compromise between gays and non-gays. Gays couples could recieve all of the legal rights and privleges of married couples, but thier union would not be called a "marriage". There is no constitutional right to gay marriage or straight marriage. And as a consequence, the states are free to regulate it pretty much as they see fit. I know this is almost an ancient idea which is no longer taught in law school. But it made our nation what it is.

And anyone who has followed the "gay marriage" issue knows that gay rights were never the intention of the activists. This is just an assault on Christianity. The activists wish to make Christianity irrelevant like it is in Europe. But, in Europe Islam is on the rise. And the last time I checked, Islam has no tolerance for homosexuals.

John Navratil| 6.17.10 @ 10:00AM

JimH, Stuart Koehl,

Both of your comments are precisely on point. But that is NOT what the "gay marriage" proponents want. They do not want civil unions and decry them as discriminatory. They want society to recognize their unions are wholly (pun intended) equivalent to traditional marriage. Ultimately, as Mr. Tyrell writes, they are pushing a rope.

Purpleguy| 6.18.10 @ 12:56AM

They want equality to be able to be proud of their spouses and acceptance into the safety and justice of the marriage contract, with all the responsibilities happiness, and benefits marriage brings. It is a proven fact the married couples live longer than singles ... peace of mind, of belonging is part of that.

Stuart Koehl| 6.18.10 @ 5:59AM

But what they want is not marriage; it violates the definition of the word, and, forgive men, I am quaint in thinking that words have meanings. Moreover, thre is very little evidence that gay unions function in the same manner as conventional marriages.

Purpleguy| 6.18.10 @ 8:27AM

It's simple .... you say "words have meanings" which translates, "what I have is better than you, and to elevate your relationships to the level of mine is taking something away from me". Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing anyone does inside their own marriage affects you at all.

And, there is plenty of evidence that gay unions bring stability to a relationship and in the case of gay adoption, a family unit that is loving and caring. Gay unions have some of the same problems that marriage has, but few of the benefits, and that is unequal justice under the law - and it's Unconstitutional to single out one group of people for separate justice. Period.

Stuart Koehl| 6.18.10 @ 11:52AM

Spoken like a true deconstructionist. Words are just social constructs to mediate power relationships, right? So all narratives are equal, and we need not engage in facts, lest someone's feelings get hurt.

John Navratil| 6.18.10 @ 9:44AM

Horse hockey! I grew up with parents actively involved in the arts community of LSU in the 60's. I know the counter-examples of stable gay couples who've been together for fifty years (happily unmarried, by the way) but this effort began, in earnest, when HIV hit as a search for insurance benefits and has morphed into a a civil rights argument using the time-honored technique of adopting the mantle of the victim.

The scintilla of evidence is presented in the different treatment of married couples in the tax code and with automatic adoption of certain privileges upon marriage designed to foster the next generation. The big one in my opinion is that one's spouse (as confessor) may not be compelled to give testimony against one. The others can be contracted.

Civil unions are designed to correct this inequity. Not good enough! The "open" relationship which many gay couples seek, even in "marriage" must be called Marriage. It is typical Orwellian speak which informs the actions of the left. When one cannot voice a differentiation, there is no difference. When reason is perverted, irrationality rules. Perhaps that is why your posts are seen as tedious. Your words are used by you as tools to argue not as means of persuasion and your reasoning is specious.

Jocon307| 6.18.10 @ 12:56AM

They are trying to convince themselves it is the same. It is NOT the same.

So, good luck to them with that.

Now, what are the rest of us to do with our elite overlords who time and time again strike down the laws we have made for ourselves?

Does anyone doubt the gays will win this one?

As the leftists have won battle after battle in the courts?

The entire concept of self-governance has been destroyed by the left.

When their heads are on pikes refer back to this post to realize why.

darcy| 6.18.10 @ 5:09AM

At the very least, these heads should be in the pillory stocks after they're tarred and feathered.

A very public mockery of these would-be tyrants is long past due. Whereas a mere loss of their elected office cannot ever be sufficient chastisement commensurate with our utter contempt and rage at their manifold and frequent usurpations of power.

Humphrey Dumfries| 6.17.10 @ 10:02AM

usufruct:
1 : the legal right of using and enjoying the fruits or profits of something belonging to another
2 : the right to use or enjoy something

Dan Hirsch| 6.17.10 @ 10:03AM

Stuart,

You sure are full of it. History I mean.

The history of the Catholic Church and the Roman and Holy Roman Empire's relationships with the Roman and Eastern Churches is all very nice.

But, your solution has two minor problems.

First: The secular governing class in THIS country wants to use gay marriage as a wedge to discriminate primarily against Christian churches. (Ref Canadian hate speech laws, et al.) They'll start working on the Jews after they resolve the troublesome existence of Israel. The Muslims will be given a pass, considering how murderous they seem to get when their even slightly offended. No sane Christian, Jew, or Muslim in this country should favor giving this club to the federal government.

Secondly, assume that everyone decided to accept to types of marriage, i.e. civil marriage and church based marriage, won't we immediately have two classes of marriage, with one class immediately demanding equal treatment? Of course we will.

Nice effort on your part, nice history refresher, put no solution. Keep up the good effort though... (There is no sarcasm in any of this, honest.)

Stuart Koehl| 6.17.10 @ 11:18AM

"First: The secular governing class in THIS country wants to use gay marriage as a wedge to discriminate primarily against Christian churches. "

Precisely why the Churches should cede administration of marriage back to the state. When the priest or minister says, "I now pronounce you man and wife", it's usually prefaced by the words, "By the power vested in me by the state of N__." That is, he is acting as an agent of the state, not a minister of the Church. There is no reason for him to do so, other than custom.

"(Ref Canadian hate speech laws, et al.) "

Ah, but the United States is not Canada, as the chairwoman of one of those commissions reminded Mark Steyn. We do have freedom of speech and of religion embodied in our Constitution. It is only when the Churches are acting in the name of the state, or have accepted state money, that the Church gets to meddle in its affairs.

"Secondly, assume that everyone decided to accept to types of marriage, i.e. civil marriage and church based marriage, won't we immediately have two classes of marriage, with one class immediately demanding equal treatment? "

Not at all. Both are equal in the eyes of the law, because only civil marriages have legal standing. Church marriage falls into the category of "optional, if you want it". It's an extra, in so far as all legal rights and privileges are concerned. The Church is concerned with the state of our souls and with manifesting the Kingdom of God on earth. That is not the purview of the state.

You overlook how, in most other countries in the world, one is in fact required first to get a civil marriage before having a Church marriage. In France, for instance, one has to go to city hall, where the couple is married by a magistrate, then they go to church and get married again there. It is, in short, exactly the same process that pertained in the Roman Empire from the first to the ninth centuries.

Purpleguy| 6.18.10 @ 12:59AM

Very excellent piece, thank you ....

Stuart Koehl| 6.18.10 @ 6:05AM

Nonetheless, I think it would be socially disastrous to recognize gay marriages. And the state does have a vested interest in regulating sexual behavior for the good of society, which is why Lawrence v. Texas was a catastrophically wrong-headed decision.

My reason for wanting the Church out of the marriage license business is strictly to remove the religious dimension from the discussion--and it has the added benefit of allowing the Churches to do what they are meant to do without state interference.

For what it's worth, though as a Christian I believe that life begins at conception and abortion is murder, I always argue against abortion without bringing religion into the discussion.

Purpleguy| 6.18.10 @ 8:29AM

How do you feel about the death penalty? How do you feel about war? Poverty? Disease? Does the "culture of life" extend beyond the womb?

Stuart Koehl| 6.18.10 @ 11:57AM

I believe that justly administered capital punishment is, in fact, a life affirming action on the part of the community. See David Gelernter's 1985 Commentary article, "What Do Murderers Deserve" if you want more details.

War is a moral catastrophe, and always sinful--but sometimes necessary to defeat evil and protect the innocent. There are, to be blunt, worse things than war.

As for poverty, it is a relative state; the poor today live better than the rich of two centuries ago. Which might be why a certain itinerant Galilean rabbi said, "The poor you shall always have with you". We should strive personally to relieve want and suffering wherever we encounter it, but inequality of wealth is an inevitable outcome of inequality in ability among men, which in turn is a result of the Fall.

Nice try, though. I always thought the seamless garment ploy was pretty weak.

PolishKnight| 6.17.10 @ 10:18AM

I understand where Bob is going. I personally think that gay marriage is a political Stalingrad issue. The left doesn't really care about poor gays unable to visit each other in the hospital anymore than they care about eliminating racism, green energy, or helping the poor. These are merely political stances to justify personal notions of superiority for useful idiots (liberal voters) or to curry votes for opportunitistic leftist politicians.

The reason why the left seemingly ruins perfectly good causes is precisely because when they're in a ruined state they are useful for buying votes. Obama's first instinct in the oil spill, for example, wasn't to clean it up but rather to find ways to use it to further his own agenda. It's ugly as hell and his ghoulish like behavior has hurt his popularity figures. FYI, that isn't his "Katrina" since Bush's "Katrina" happened in a region where few would vote for him anyway. He's hurting votes in his own district, the only tragedy he is capable of considering in his crocodile-style conscience.

Anyway, back to gay voting. It's a neat Stalingrad issue but doesn't address the fundamental problems facing marriage which is the divorce courts which uses a spoils system to discourage men from entering into it and women's workplace equality which has created a shortage of marriageable men for successful career women. Those problems are not going away anytime soon.

Stuart Koehl| 6.17.10 @ 11:21AM

Stalingrad became a trap for the Germans because Hitler would not allow them to withdraw their head from the meat grinder. Conservatives--and especially Christian conservatives--should not make the same mistake, but should pull out of the pocket before being encircled and annihilated. By disentangling themselves from the entire debate, they can maintain the freedom to bear witness according to their own doctrines, immune to interference from outside forces.

You are correct about divorce, however, and its corrosive effect on the institution of marriage. The solution there is moral rather than legal, and the Church will be in a better position to instruct and set an example if it is not serving two masters.

Derek Leaberry| 6.17.10 @ 1:01PM

Do you believe that Christians and social conservatives should turn their backs on the secular society and retreat to their own communities, sort of like what the Christians did in the latter Roman Empire?

Stuart Koehl| 6.17.10 @ 3:14PM

Not at all. But also I do not believe that the Church should compromise its beliefs, doctrines and disciplines in order to have peace with the state. The Church must be free and unencumbered to be what it is, and acting as magistrates on behalf of a state that no longer shares the moral outlook of the Church is an encumbrance we don't need.

As an Orthodox Christian, my preference of course would be for the type of symphonia that existed between Church and state in the Byzantine Empire, where the state was explicitly Christian and had the responsibility for defending the Church and protecting the People of God. Yet even then (and contrary to caricatures of caesaropapism), the Church remained autonomous and independent in matters of belief, repelling all attempts of the state to impose its position when that position was contrary to the received Tradition of the Church.

The state having a monopoly upon the use of force, there were--and there are and will be--times when the opposition of the Church to the state will result in persecution up to and including martyrdom. This is the cross that we as Christians are called to bear, and it may be that this time is coming in the United States (though I imagine it will be one of the most comfortable martyrdoms in history, given the aversion of our opponents to rigorous imprisonment, let alone capital punishment). If so, then God give us the strength to be true witnesses.

The Christians of the later Roman period did not turn inward. Rather, they became ever more explicit in their identity and overt in their worship. When Diocletian began the last great persecution in 305, the largest building he could see from the steps of his palace in Nicomedia was the Christian church--and his first act was to have it torn down.

Having seen the failure of past persecutions (the most recent under Decius and Aurelius in 251 and 255), Diocletian decided not to attack the Christian rank and file, but to go after the institutional framework of the Church by seizing property and imprisoning deacons, presbyters and bishops. A few were tortured; several died, but overall it was perhaps the most effective persecution of all, because it went after the weak link in the Church--its leadership. Many bishops fled; a number apostasized, laying the seeds of a crisis that would affect the Church for the next century (the reintegration of the lapsed)--but in the end, it, too, failed. Constantine legitimized Christianity in 313, and Theodosius made it the official religion of the state in 394 (by closing the pagan temples and prohibiting animal sacrifice). By the end of the 4th century, Christianity was dominant and self-confident. If only about half of all Romans were Christian, that was a huge increase from the 10% of Constantine's time, and it was clear paganism was on the skids--despite the Arian crisis and the myriad other christological controversies that would rend the Church in the fifth century.

The Big E| 6.17.10 @ 10:30AM

The history of marriage in this country, and in particular, the history of ministers and organized churches acting in a legal capacity in regards to marriage, demonstrates more than anything I can think off that the so-called "wall" between Church and State is a legal fallacy. Had the founders truly desired a "wall" between Church and State, they would never have attached significant legal rights to marriage.

Stuart Koehl| 6.17.10 @ 11:51AM

Every state attaches significant legal rights to marriage, for the benefit of society at large. Marriage is essential for the raising of children and the transference of property, hence even secular states have maintained an entire body of marriage law.

Where the United States differs from many other countries is in making ministers of the Church deputies of the state in the execution of marriage licenses. This is a legacy of our British heritage. In Great Britain, the established Church was, in effect, an arm of the government, hence it made perfect sense to put the Church in charge of marriage. The same was true in most of Europe until the French Revolution (and later, the Russian revolution and communist period). Then, the link between Church and state was severed in a severely secular manner, and Church ministers no longer served as agents of the state in the execution of marriage contracts.

In the United States, marriage was (and remains) the purview of the states, and in most of the original states there was either an established Church or an informally recognized set of Churches and denominations to which the execution of marriage contracts was habitually delegated.

Since, prior to the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights pertained only to the Federal government and not to the states, any doctrine of "separation of Church and state" would not have applied to the issue of marriage one way or the other.

PolishKnight| 6.17.10 @ 1:43PM

"Every state attaches significant legal rights to marriage, for the benefit of society at large"

It's rather amusing that in the last few decades, the state has been making marriage less desirable not only from the POV of men WRT the divorce courts, but in general with tax liabilities via the marriage penalty.

Regarding marriage's essential role in the raising of children: The right submitted to emotional blackmail by excusing unwed motherhood due to concerns that such women might get abortions. As men fled marriage due to the divorce courts, child-support became a back-door form of alimony.

Unwed motherhood is so common nowadays that many churches feel a need to look the other way as they even setup daycare centers for their parishoner women to drop off their children.

Stuart Koehl| 6.17.10 @ 3:18PM

The worm may turn on that problem. It is now generally recognized that a stable, conventional nuclear family is the best guarantee of social and financial success for children. A state that cannot afford any longer to maintain an exorbitant welfare system cannot afford the kind of behaviors that create a dependent class. More and more social scientists--and a few brave politicians--are calling for measures to strengthen marriage and make divorce more difficult.

The irony is the social elites whose policies have done so much to undermine marriage for the lower classes do not practice what they preach, but tend to live in very conventional, bourgeois marriages. The havoc that results from the devaluation of marriage does not affect them.

PolishKnight| 6.17.10 @ 9:07PM

Stuart, I wish you were correct, but the fact of the matter is that many conservatives believe that a "nuclear" family is no longer necessary for the social and financial success of children.

The system is based upon the premise that men will accept their "manly" duty to provide for women and children they are no longer allowed to see even as they are declared to be unnecessary to be around.

The elites of both parties have jabbered about making divorce more difficult but that's what it is: jabbering. They haven't addressed the core paradigm that rewards women for initiating divorce and makes children into a prize. Rather than strengthen marriage, recent laws such as VAWA act reward women for making false complaints of violence.

The elites ARE affected by these social policies as many of them are no longer marrying although it's just not as drastic as the lower classes. This is why they're willing to engage in immigration as a tactic to import votes along with lead based Chinese toys. Their agenda is failing so prop it up.

darcy| 6.18.10 @ 5:22AM

" . . . but the fact of the matter is that many conservatives believe that a "nuclear" family is no longer necessary for the social and financial success of children."

What a preposterous statement! The very definition of conservatism is that it conserves the traditions of the past. No TRUE conservative would fit your example. They are NOT CONSERVATIVES. They are something else.

Think about it.

TURK| 6.17.10 @ 10:53AM

Look around! With the communist in chief: with the leftist pouring chaos:with horrendus debt:with "homosexual (they aint "Gay")rights rending our JudeoChristian culture, this great Nation is on the brink. That homosexuals cannot visit friends in the hospital is just so much b.s.! Having lost an 11 yr battle with cancer with my deceased wife, and in other encounters with friends and family in the hospital I never had ANY trouble visiting. It is among the lies the left uses to cram their filth down our throats. We should reject Olson and any "conservatives" of his ilk. It is the likes of Olson, Graham, McCain,Crist, Specter, Dewine,Voinavich et al that mede the republicans the big joke in 08. The results were catastrophic!

Civil Union, Shmivil Union| 6.17.10 @ 11:30AM

When anyone brings up civil unions or any other idea for reducing road blocks or removing other unreasonable restrictions to help gays get whatever "benefits" the think they are missing (like alimony payments), the activists stomp their little feet, scream and shout, hold their breath and DEMAND we all respect them and go to Macy's where they are registered.

When anyone worries that letting gays marry will open the door to polygamists and other "arrangements" , they are called bigots and homophobes (which really isn't even a word).

It's really just an exercise in futility to even talk to these people. So it's time to vote the Liberals OUT and make sure they stay out and offer the gays nothing. Don't give in to the hamster loving screammy meemees. They can't argue a point without yelling, name calling, violence, dressing up like idiots and interrupting peaceful church gatherings, so screw 'em! Let them get violent. We can get violent, too.

darcy| 6.18.10 @ 5:33AM

You've got the right attitude, I must say. The only reason they've made so much headway in their march to force their lifestyle in our faces is because we've been a bunch of sissies (no pun intended); is because too many of us have simply zoned-out and gone into accommodation mode; is because we've lost OUR bearings.

That we've arrived at this juncture is far more an indictment on the straight community than it is on the homosexual community. Reaping and sowing. Remember?

Sharon| 6.17.10 @ 11:35AM

Mystie, you are not correct. In a number of states the rights of the hospitalized and dying cannot be guaranteed by power of attorney or other contract. There are restrictions that are reserved for parents, children, and spouses, and states and healthcare providers do not recognize contractual or POA provisions. Google the topic for more specifics, but unfortunately these situations cannot be corrected under present laws.

Seek| 6.17.10 @ 11:54AM

Say, what's gotten into Ted Olson? I thought he was one of the world's leading conservatives.

Mystie| 6.17.10 @ 12:38PM

Perhaps there are some states where, under current law, a POA won't allow a gay person to visit his comatose partner over the objections of of the comatose partner's parents. (I would assume a CONSCIOUS hospital patient's wishes would trump that of his parents.) But what is easier and less disruptive to change? The POA law or the marriage law?

Brian| 6.17.10 @ 1:48PM

What Tyrrell is saying is that he supports gay marriage but via the back door so to speak in a common sense bi-partisan compassionate conservative sort of way. Argh vomit

Ted| 6.17.10 @ 2:06PM

We fool only ourselves if we thing gay "marriage" advocates will be placated by civil unions, gay "marriages", or removing the church - state marriage link. This has to do with a radical homosexual agenda intent on forcing the American public to accept the homosexual lifestyle as legitimate. Once this happens, you can rest assured that no institution will be safe from discrimination charges. Further, once you allow marriage to be redefined for homosexuals, on what basis will you deny marriage rights to those who wish to practice either polygyny or polyandry? Or perhaps those who want to have a "marriage" consisting of several men and several women?

Make no mistake. Once you redefine marriage for one group, others will demand the same "rights." Separating the religious marriage from a civil marriage or union is great, theoretically. In practice, it will yield terrible results for our country, our cultture, traditional marriage, and children.

Chuck Anziulewicz | 6.17.10 @ 2:44PM

While it's true that the Constitution doesn't define "marriage," the federal government has a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of tax law and Social Security (among the 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are automatically bestowed on couples once they marry). This is not an issue that can be left up to the states to decide individually, since it wouldn't do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa, for instance, to become automatically UN-married once they decide to move somewhere else.

Religious beliefs are irrelevant, because (1) the United States is not theocracy, and (2) churches will continue to be free to conduct or deny ceremonies to whomever they want.

Procreation and parenting are irrelevant, since couples do not have to marry to have children, and the ability or even desire to have children is not a prerequisite for getting a marriage license.

This is simply a matter of equal treatment under the law.

The quest for marriage equality by Gay couples has absolutely nothing to do with Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples. Nothing is changing for them. Nothing is happening to “traditional marriage.” Most people are Straight, and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that will change by allowing Gay couples to do the same. This is really not any sort of a “sea change” for marriage, since the only difference between Gay and Straight couples is the gender of the two persons in the relationship.

Mr. Tyrrell, you should ask yourself why law-abiding, taxpaying Gay Americans should be forced to subsidize all the legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples enjoy, when we are unable to take advantage of those same incentives to marry. And since when do voters get to decide that the rights they enjoy should NOT apply to minorities?

JP| 6.17.10 @ 4:09PM

Chuck,
I wish it was as easy as you put it. But life is never that simple. Our laws are niether abstractions (as you presented them), nor are they suicide pacts (to paraphrase Justice Jackson). Our governments do have a vested interest in procreation, stable families, etc... as defined by Western Culture. After all, our laws are direct expression of Western Culture -esp the Constitution. The Founders never intended for the law to be purely abstract set of ideals with no relevance to the people who lived under it.

With that in mind, the remember the Constitution serves citizens not "life-styles". There is a huge difference in protected people as people (ie of different races and beliefs) than protecting people with a proclivity for sodomy.

Our constitution allows for compromise on almost all issue. And most states thought they found the compromise to almost all of the gay actviists complainst with the idea of gay unions (not gay marriage). Gay activists are demanding that thier "unions" be labled as acts of marriage. The people in California said NO. Under the law, there isn't really any distinction between the 2. But, gays never really were concerned about gay rights. Thier target is of course Christians. Once they get thier way in the courts their next target of course will be the Churches.

And to answer your last question: "Mr. Tyrrell, you should ask yourself why law-abiding, taxpaying Gay Americans should be forced to subsidize all the legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples enjoy, when we are unable to take advantage of those same incentives to marry."

You are bringing up a strawman. Gay couples in California can have gay unions. Secondly, it is straight couple who produce children. And children from straight stable families go on and provide the bulk of our tax dollars. That is, they will be subsidzing gay couples in thier old age. You take away the stability of straight families (which is happening with growing rapidity) and you remove the social benefits straights provide to this nation.

PolishKnight| 6.17.10 @ 9:19PM

Chuck, note that I'm not strongly opposed to gay marriage. That said, I call balderdash. This is another perfect example of someone saying "we just want equality" and then turn around and declare "now we need SPECIAL rights to make up for PREVIOUS discrimination! Some animals are MORE equal than others!"

It's a pity that your agenda just happened to come AFTER the feminist and black civil rights movements of the 1960's that went from mere "equality" to "get even".

Here's an answer to your question: "Since when do voters get to decide that the rights they enjoy should not apply to minorities?" The answer is: When they say it's an affirmative action.

Good luck. You're going to need it.

Derek Leaberry| 6.17.10 @ 4:32PM

Once homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land, expect polygamy next. And after that, expect an Obama-packed Supreme Court to reverse its decision on the Boys Scouts' ban on homosexual troop leaders. In this world of radical egalitarianism, not only is the Republican Party and the conservative movement infected, it offers pathetic resistance to it. The conservative movement fails in conserving anything.

CalMark| 6.17.10 @ 9:45PM

Nothing has changed. The same crowd that tried to destroy marriage in the 1960s is just doing it a different way. In the 1960s, they derided marriage as an outdated tool of patriarchal opression and "just a piece of paper." They failed miserably.

The direct approach having failed, they're now trying to dilute marriage to destroy it. And to a large extent are succeeding.

Prop. 8 gets put on the ballot, despite ferocious left-wing opposition.
Prop. 8 passes despite dishonest ballot wording ("Yes" means no to gay marriage)
Prop. 8 improbably survives a challenge to the California Supreme Court.

Even though it has strong support, even though it's right, even though the traditionalists keep winning, there is a feeling of doom--it can't last, because somewhere, some court will overturn it, very likely the Supreme Court, because Anthony Kennedy happens to be a big "Gay Rights" guy.

This is not America. This country is doomed.

Ken Royall| 6.18.10 @ 12:22AM

I don't see what is wrong with allowing the democratic process to work. Gay marriage has been voted down 31-0 so far in the states it has been on the ballot. Olsen is a meddler and should stay out of it.

Purpleguy| 6.18.10 @ 12:51AM

Do you know that gay teen suicide is the highest in the country? Why? Did you know that many gays are relegated to a life of bars and drugs and destructive behavior? Why? Because our society shuns them, denies them the rights the rest of us enjoy and shames them every chance we get? Sports, the Military, many organizations use the all encompassing "fag", "sissy", "pansy", or "girl" to shame boys and men into being strong, tough - anything so they are not gay-like. Can you imagine how that would make you feel? It's no wonder gays hide their identity from the rest of us if they can. Did you know there are some 1100 Federal laws to protect citizens (inheritance, property, medical, parental, etc.) through marriage that are not available to a gay couple, because they cannot be married? Any minority ought to understand the pain that gay people are subjected to, and yet even in the Hispanic and African American communities there are homophobes and intolerance.

Gay people do not choose to be gay, any more than you or I chose to be heterosexual; we just are; and they just are. Sure a gay man could be celibate, and so could you. But you are still you, right? - omg why would anyone choose to be a member of the one group in this country that it's still okay to degrade and make fun of? Think about that.

Permitting gays to marry doesn't do anything to the sanctity of a man and woman's marriage. The threat for a man and a woman's marriage is Divorce, not a gay or any other marriage. Support banning divorce if you worry about threats to marriage. All gay marriage would do is provide a stable life with some measure of acceptance by society that all gays deserve and crave. Gays are kind and gentle, good people to be around, if given half a chance to prove it.

Don't deny them the justice and freedoms we all enjoy just because it's not been done before. America is the place we everything hasn't been done before. For this we should be thankful.

If you are married, are you not proud of your husband or wife? Are you not happy to introduce your friends and coworkers to your spouse? Can you feel comfortable simply owning a house together and living in a safe, comfortable neighborhood without fear of reprisals for just being there.

There is no "gay agenda" except a yearning for equality in all things. To be accepted as a human being and to enjoy what everyone else is able to. You don't have to approve of anything to accept a gay couple as a loving pair bond between humans.

Stuart Koehl| 6.18.10 @ 6:24AM

"Do you know that gay teen suicide is the highest in the country?"

Preposterous claim, considering that nobody knows how many "gay teens" there are. But when liberals begin mustering statistics, you know that logic has failed them and we must go into the realm of invention.

"Did you know that many gays are relegated to a life of bars and drugs and destructive behavior?"

Um, because homosexuality is really "objectively disordered" behavior, and because they enjoy it?

"Why? Because our society shuns them, denies them the rights the rest of us enjoy and shames them every chance we get? "

For a shunned subgroup, they seem to be doing awfully well both socially and economically.

"Sports, the Military, many organizations use the all encompassing "fag", "sissy", "pansy", or "girl" to shame boys and men into being strong, tough - anything so they are not gay-like. "

Who's stereotyping now? But, in any case, you're talking to the wrong guy about gays in the military. See my recent piece in the Weekly Standard blog.

"Did you know there are some 1100 Federal laws to protect citizens (inheritance, property, medical, parental, etc.) through marriage that are not available to a gay couple, because they cannot be married?"

There's a good reason for that: conventional marriage is socially beneficial, and the state has a vested interest in promoting it by giving it a privileged position. The fallacy of your entire approach is based on the notion that marriage is simply a private arrangement between two individuals (or perhaps more?), and not a fundamental societal institution. Radical individualism and radical egalitarianism are both socially corrosive, as the last three or four decades of liberal social experimentation have shown pretty decisively.

"Any minority ought to understand the pain that gay people are subjected to, and yet even in the Hispanic and African American communities there are homophobes and intolerance."

Maybe they just understand that what they wanted was equal rights, and not the creation of new rights out of thin air. Put another way, race is incidental, sex is ontological.

"Gay people do not choose to be gay, any more than you or I chose to be heterosexual; we just are; and they just are."

Jury is out on that one, but if it's true, then by all rights you should be foursquare against abortion. After all, if homosexuality is genetic, and there is a gay gene, then you can test for it, and just as there is selective abortion for other congenital illnesses, there will be selective abortion for homosexuality. But I've given up on people being able to see the consequences of their beliefs.

"ut you are still you, right? - omg why would anyone choose to be a member of the one group in this country that it's still okay to degrade and make fun of? Think about that."

I've often asked myself that question: Why do I choose to be a conservative white, Christian male, anyway? But, not to put too fine a point on it, human beings choose to do a lot of things that result in their long-term unhappiness. It has something to do with original sin.

"Don't deny them the justice and freedoms we all enjoy just because it's not been done before. America is the place we everything hasn't been done before. For this we should be thankful."

So, where do you stop? Should incest laws be overturned because two consenting adults should be free to contract any sort of marital union they wish? What about polygamy, or polyandry, or polyamory? If the Lawrence decision is taken at face value, the state has no right to interfere, and should give equal sanction to all--as that great legal scholar Woody Allen put it, "The heart wants what the heart wants"--a good summation of what Justice Scalia called the "sweet mystery of life" approach taken by the Court in Lawrence.

"All gay marriage would do is provide a stable life with some measure of acceptance by society that all gays deserve and crave. "

This is propaganda pure and simple. The be brutally frank, the pioneers of the gay rights movement eschewed gay marriage, because they saw marriage as an inherently oppressive heterosexual institution. Gays were beyond that (and, as their tendency towards promiscuity indicates, waaaay beyond it). Harvey Milk, whom Hollywood tried to turn into a poster boy for gay marriage during the Proposition 8 debate, publicly and repeatedly rejected the very notion of gay marriage, as did many other gay rights leaders.

The tide turned because of two things: AIDS and the desire for the goodies of marriage without any of the inherent responsibilities of marriage. But, I suppose, everybody needs a good story, and this one is yours.

"There is no "gay agenda" except a yearning for equality in all things."

Actually, there is something more: a desire to eat your cake and have it, too.

"You don't have to approve of anything to accept a gay couple as a loving pair bond between humans."

Um, yes, I do, so I won't, thanks very much.

Purpleguy| 6.18.10 @ 9:07AM

Stuart Koehl| 6.18.10 @ 6:24AM

"Do you know that gay teen suicide is the highest in the country?"

" Preposterous claim, considering that nobody knows how many "gay teens" there are. But when liberals begin mustering statistics, you know that logic has failed them and we must go into the realm of invention." - there is lots of evidence of this; read it if you really care to know... and you condescension is moot - http://www.healthyplace.com/ge.....u-id-1420/
one-third of all teenagers who commit suicide are gay. - that's a fairly large %, unless you consider 1/3 of all pe0ple 33% are gay.

"Did you know that many gays are relegated to a life of bars and drugs and destructive behavior?"

"Um, because homosexuality is really "objectively disordered" behavior, and because they enjoy it? " - Not according to the American College of Psychiatry- unless YOU think you know more than they do; Is that what YOU'RE saying? Pffft. Do you enjoy sex? Well, then, you are no different, dude.

"Why? Because our society shuns them, denies them the rights the rest of us enjoy and shames them every chance we get? "

"For a shunned subgroup, they seem to be doing awfully well both socially and economically" . - Proof please? Stop pulling out of your a...a

"Sports, the Military, many organizations use the all encompassing "fag", "sissy", "pansy", or "girl" to shame boys and men into being strong, tough - anything so they are not gay-like. "

" Who's stereotyping now? But, in any case, you're talking to the wrong guy about gays in the military. See my recent piece in the Weekly Standard blog." --- if you have never been called a "sissy", or "ladies" or "girly men" to motivate physical achievement by a sports coach or a sergeant in the military then you haven't been in either. It's that simple. I said nothing about gays in the military. Don't twist the argument to fit what you want to rail against.

"There's a good reason for that: conventional marriage is socially beneficial, and the state has a vested interest in promoting it by giving it a privileged position. The fallacy of your entire approach is based on the notion that marriage is simply a private arrangement between two individuals (or perhaps more?), and not a fundamental societal institution. Radical individualism and radical egalitarianism are both socially corrosive, as the last three or four decades of liberal social experimentation have shown pretty decisively. " - Marriage is socially beneficial; that is the whole point. By denying one group those rights and responsibilities, you relegate that group to second class citizen status, which is not socially beneficial. The same ideologically and behavioral arguments presented against interracial marriage as well, and that entire mode of framing the argument has been debunked. Gay marriage does exist today in some states - so where's the end of marriage? There is proof positive now that the world does not end because we, as a society are just and extend freedoms and rights to all. We are all created equal, are we not?

"Any minority ought to understand the pain that gay people are subjected to, and yet even in the Hispanic and African American communities there are homophobes and intolerance."

"Maybe they just understand that what they wanted was equal rights, and not the creation of new rights out of thin air. Put another way, race is incidental, sex is ontological." ---- that is simply your ideological stance. Sure, skin color and outward physical appearance is much easier to spot, and I might add, much easier to oppress. Race, sex, and sexual orientation are all ontological, all determined during embryological development - Genes and hormones play a key role in human development and outcomes. Go learn something about science, before you proof you don't know.

"Gay people do not choose to be gay, any more than you or I chose to be heterosexual; we just are; and they just are."

"Jury is out on that one, but if it's true, then by all rights you should be foursquare against abortion. After all, if homosexuality is genetic, and there is a gay gene, then you can test for it, and just as there is selective abortion for other congenital illnesses, there will be selective abortion for homosexuality. But I've given up on people being able to see the consequences of their beliefs." ---- actually selecting for a boy over a girl, as you say, for selective abortion is everyone's right today, so that is no different, just some more fear mongering.

"ut you are still you, right? - omg why would anyone choose to be a member of the one group in this country that it's still okay to degrade and make fun of? Think about that."

"I've often asked myself that question: Why do I choose to be a conservative white, Christian male, anyway? But, not to put too fine a point on it, human beings choose to do a lot of things that result in their long-term unhappiness. It has something to do with original sin." --- the key word is "choose"; you don't choose a 1000 things about yourself ... physical, mental and behavioral things that are all determined early in life. Hair, eye, skin color are easy. Fear of heights, agressiveness, shyness, those are more difficult to point to. The nurture vs. nature debate still goes on, but it is clear that we are a product of both. Most probably a set of genetic material we inherit, and how we live, what we encounter turns some genetic predispositions on, and some off.

"Don't deny them the justice and freedoms we all enjoy just because it's not been done before. America is the place we everything hasn't been done before. For this we should be thankful."

" So, where do you stop? Should incest laws be overturned because two consenting adults should be free to contract any sort of marital union they wish? What about polygamy, or polyandry, or polyamory? If the Lawrence decision is taken at face value, the state has no right to interfere, and should give equal sanction to all--as that great legal scholar Woody Allen put it, "The heart wants what the heart wants"--a good summation of what Justice Scalia called the "sweet mystery of life" approach taken by the Court in Lawrence." ---- This is complete ideologically rant. You know where you stop - 2 human beings love each other, man with woman - man with man - woman with man - that's it, case closed. More than 2 is not sanctioned and any being not human does not qualify.

"All gay marriage would do is provide a stable life with some measure of acceptance by society that all gays deserve and crave. "

"This is propaganda pure and simple. The be brutally frank, the pioneers of the gay rights movement eschewed gay marriage, because they saw marriage as an inherently oppressive heterosexual institution. Gays were beyond that (and, as their tendency towards promiscuity indicates, waaaay beyond it). Harvey Milk, whom Hollywood tried to turn into a poster boy for gay marriage during the Proposition 8 debate, publicly and repeatedly rejected the very notion of gay marriage, as did many other gay rights leaders." ---- When you have lived the life of the oppressed in society, than you can tell me what is propaganda - it is simply a fairness, freedom and justice issue. And, as you point out, the Supreme Court has created precedent law, and so is settled law now... so let's all abide by the laws of man and the laws of justice and let gays marry.

"There is no "gay agenda" except a yearning for equality in all things."

Actually, there is something more: a desire to eat your cake and have it, too.

"You don't have to approve of anything to accept a gay couple as a loving pair bond between humans."

Um, yes, I do, so I won't, thanks very much. You're just a sanctimonious, odius, lying sack of shit. You profess to have all the answers, and yet, everything you say is based on being gay as a behavior, which is it is not. If you were gay, you might understand that.

Stuart Koehl| 6.18.10 @ 12:06PM

"one-third of all teenagers who commit suicide are gay. - that's a fairly large %, unless you consider 1/3 of all pe0ple 33% are gay."

Utter silliness, on par with claiming that every great figure in history from Julius Caesar to Leonardo to Napoleon was gay. It's as bad as the Soviets laying claim to every technological invention in modern history.

"Not according to the American College of Psychiatry- unless YOU think you know more than they do"

As a matter of fact, I do. And a classic appeal to authority doesn't carry much weight in rational debate.

"Marriage is socially beneficial; that is the whole point."

And marriage has a specific meaning--has had for millennia: a union between a man and a woman. Anything else is bunk.

"This is complete ideologically rant. You know where you stop - 2 human beings love each other, man with woman - man with man - woman with man - that's it, case closed. More than 2 is not sanctioned and any being not human does not qualify."

It's good to see that you have no conception of the law of unintended consequences.

"You're just a sanctimonious, odius, lying sack of shit. You profess to have all the answers, and yet, everything you say is based on being gay as a behavior, which is it is not. If you were gay, you might understand that."

Game, set and match, I think. But thank you for playing.

ROBER| 6.20.10 @ 7:38PM

Sack of shit? This proves my point which you may wish to scroll down to see. Vilification is not an argument; it is a fascist shriek in the night; it is the homosexuals' substitution for debate.

ROBER| 6.20.10 @ 7:40PM

Sack of shit? This proves my point which you may wish to scroll down to see. Vilification is not an argument; it is a fascist shriek in the night; it is the homosexuals' substitution for debate.

Petronius| 6.18.10 @ 9:19AM

I witnessed a shouting match between a homosexual and another individual. The original argument was about Viet Nam and progressed through cowardice, treason, and so to, "you're one of them." The vitriolic response of the gay guy was, "We are taking over. And WE are going to Make You like Us!" Their goal is commanding acceptance from the straight populace to the extent that public display of any sentiment or attitude displeasing to them will be criminalized.
NEVER!! Nothing they do can make me like them or anyone else. Social acceptance must be Earned.
But in the liberal world "get" means "take."

rcv| 6.20.10 @ 1:44AM

Petronius, no one really cares whether you "like" them or not.

FTM| 6.20.10 @ 7:19AM

I wanted to read all of the posts on this topic but I'm pressed for time (aren't we all).

It would seem to me that the primary goal of the Sodomite rights activist is too keep the social, political and legal plight of the Sodomite forever in the public eye. Now, I don't know about you but frankly speaking I'd just as well not have to listen to these folks whine and the like So, as a countermeasure I suggest the following: Give these folks exactly what they want. Sodomites want to get married, OK fine. Sodomites want equal legal protection under the law? OK fine. Whatever else the Sodomites want, OK fine.

I a lot of cases when you're dealing with radicals, activists and do-gooders the worst of all things that you can do to these morons is to give them exactly what they want. Most of the time they're like the dog that actually catches the car, "now what."

I read "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky. The Achilles' heel of the radical movement, the single most effective way to deal with these people is to perfectly pacify them. Upon achieving pacification on what premise do you justify further agitation? How do you maintain your constituency when there is nothing left with which to maintain unity?

When the Sodomites are perfectly pacified what else do the Sodomites have to whine about? In a social or political setting, introducing a speaker and mentioning that he's a Sodomite makes about as much sense as mention that some other speaker is Irish. Pretty soon there is no more glamor in "Being Out." No more social perception of maryterdom, no more image of longsuffering persecution. Sodomism would quietly cease to be a social or political issue.

By the bye, this is my prescription for dealing with global terrorism. The radical Moslem wants to live in the seventh century, OK fine, let them. No Western influence. No Western technology, no Western Medicine, no Western power generation, water purification, nothing. After twenty or so years of a life expectancy of forty or so years and an infant mortality rate of eighty or so percent one would think that these savages would be ready to calm down and rejoin the rest of the human race and behave in a civil fashion.

ROBERT | 6.20.10 @ 7:31PM

Respectfully,

You may wish to read my comment further down. Pacification is not the solution; it never was, it does not work. Recall that Gays first demanded rights only for Gays; suddenly their demand accelerated to include transgenders, men who douse themselves with dangerous concentrations of estrogen and see to their surgical castration. Soon, as I wrote, NAMBLA, a collection of dangerous homosexual pedophiles may well succeed in their demand for intergenerational marriage; i.e. a "man/boy" relationship. Don't be surprised if one day he acquires the right, for example, to propose to your adolescent son.

Neville Chamberlain tried pacification of an ideology as deviate as homosexuality: National Socialism. His "pacification" finally led to the betrayal of Chekeslovakia, and an interminable, avoidable and terrible war.

In response to the theory of pacification, Trotsky famously wrote: "You may not be interested in the modern state. But the modern state in interested in you.

ROBERT | 6.20.10 @ 7:18PM

A gene defining homosexuals as a distinct sex does not exist. There is no precedent in Western or Eastern History, not one, recognizing the right of homosexuals to marry or to raise children. The Mass.. Supreme Court justices who found that a two hundred year old Puritan constitution provided homosexuals the right to marry, are traitors to their state, the country, to rationality and American civilization.

Homosexuality is deviate,dangerous and psychotic. Presently they are asking the federal government to grant them to "right" to donate blood to the general blood supply. They know that, as a consequence of potentially lethal sexual practices, the Center for Disease Control, suggests all human beings avoid such practices, sodomy for example, like .... well, the plague. That is because homosexuals as a group are infected with more of the lethal sexual diseases including AIDs than any other segment of the population. They insist on this right even though the AIDs test is by no means perfect and because a window of several months exists wherein a homosexual although infected with the disease will not register the infection on an AIDS test. The homosexual realizes this and does not care. This is insanity.

Finally, if a group that composes under two percent of the population can shove down the throat of the American people, a homosexual right to marry, then absolutely any idea whatsoever, may as well be forced on Americans.

Remember NAMBLA, a male homosexual group, that fully describes the inherent and deviate sexual impulses of homosexuals to include sexual intercourse with minors. In ten years you are going to love it when one of them proposes marriage say, to your 12 year old boy-- and have a constitutional right to do so! Homosexual pedophiles, that is most homosexuals, refer to this as "intergenerational marriage." Has a nice, pleasant sound doesn't it? Like the word "Gay" or "transgenders" homosexuals used to describe their own sickness.

Remember finally, homosexuals do not debate. The theme of their lawyer in the pending case is that those who believe that the institution of marriage defines the relationship as between one man and one woman, are "Haters" "Homophobes" "Religious Cretins" the list is endless. This argument is made in the style of the "fascist." There is nothing to debate because the basis of their claim to right is deviate and irrational. Better then to shout you down.

The case was a farce, by the way; the judge will rule in favor of the homosexuals.

ROBERT

fjdsk| 7.1.10 @ 5:06AM

beijing massage

Latest Headlines

From the Obama Ministry of Truth

Ben Stein|51 comments

Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal

Quin Hillyer|45 comments

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

Jeffrey Lord|56 comments

McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal

Ross Kaminsky|105 comments

Anyone Still Believe Me?

Aaron Goldstein|33 comments

The Book We Still Can’t Spare

Lars Walker|48 comments

Delivering Serbs to the Wolves

Doug Bandow|24 comments

Wincing at Cumberbatch

James Bowman|9 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Carney Goes Birther on Major Garrett

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

UPDATED: More on Lerner Pleading the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 5.21.13

Did Virginia Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?

Ross Kaminsky | 5.21.13

Lois Lerner Will Take the Fifth

Ross Kaminsky | 5.21.13

Cook Insists: No Income Shifting, Tax Avoidance

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.21.13

Democrats Outraged Over IRS, But Not the Right Aspect of It

Kaylin Bugos | 5.21.13

What Happens If the Uninsured Can’t Register Under Obamacare?

Patrick Ryan | 5.21.13

Whitehouse Berates Republicans for Causing Tornadoes

Claire Healey | 5.21.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?