-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
For years, David Frum was one of the most eloquent voices for the sober case against same-sex marriage. He now says he was wrong because the hysterical case against same-sex marriage has not been borne out by the facts. For it was only the hysterical opponents of same-sex marriage who believed that the mere sight of gays standing before a Unitarian minister or a justice of the peace would cause heterosexuals to divorce their spouses en masse.
Just six states plus the District of Columbia have same-sex marriage, none for more than seven years. With minor variations, those marriages are not recognized by the other 44 states or the federal government. Until fairly recently, same-sex marriage looked reversible either by federal action or popular vote in every one of those jurisdictions (it still might be reversed in Iowa, as it was in California and Maine). Same-sex marriage has yet to prevail on any state ballot. Only about 100,000 official same-sex weddings had taken place by 2008, according to the Census Bureau. Even Vermont, which has been experimenting with unisex marriage the longest, has only had full same-sex marriage — as opposed to civil unions — for two years.
These numbers are really a sufficient test case for what would happen with same-sex marriage throughout the United States? Are they a powerful enough force to overwhelm every other trend in American family life during the 2000s? Does anyone really suppose that the concept of marriage that has existed for the majority of Western civilization would immediately be undone by a few unisex wedding ceremonies and “Party A meets Party B” marriage license applications over a decade? Is this really conclusive evidence?
All these questions answer themselves. However unfair this may be, the larger problems associated with gay marriage were never very likely to have much to do with gays themselves. The biggest damage was always bound to come from the rules being rewritten for everyone else: the rigid enforcement of gender-neutral language erasing faterhood and motherhood from our shared language; public school curricula that teaches children that marriage was once between a man and a woman for motives not much dissimilar from those of the Ku Klux Klan; the erosion of the government’s expectation that people are responsible for the children they create.
Under a unisex definition of marriage, adoption and reproductive technology must play a larger role in family formation than the humane reaction to unfortunate personal circumstances they have traditionally been. Marriage will no longer be premised on parents not abandoning their children at will. Marriage will be redefined to accomodate at least one biological parent relinquishing their child as a matter of design. The consequences of this will take years to play out, not just from 2004 or even 1999 to now.
If Frum is right that “Most conservatives have reacted with calm — if not outright approval — to New York’s dramatic decision,” it’s not because all these concerns have been shown to be overblown. It’s because most conservatives, myself included, now believe we are probably on the losing side of this debate. That probability makes vocally opposing same-sex marriage seem less worth the price of wounding the feelings of one’s gay friends on the one hand and being viewed as morally equivalent to a white supremacist on the other. Certainly, it won’t advance a conservative writer’s career to be penning op-eds and blog posts that will one day be brandished like National Review’s 1950s editorials in defense of Jim Crow.
Supporters of same-sex marriage have always insisted that inclusion for 3 percent of the population is all that is at stake here. The other 97 percent can continue to reap all the social stability provided by traditional marriage. In 1997, David Frum said this view was likely wrong and I suspect he was right back then. Based on what New York has set in motion, however, we had better hope he is right now.
View all comments (177) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/28/david-frum-was-right-about-sam
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
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
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
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
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
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 9:09AM
Frum just wants to marry David Brock.
Brad| 6.28.11 @ 10:12AM
No. David Brooks.
Louis Tully| 6.28.11 @ 12:52PM
which one is the trouser crease inspector? Frum, Brooks or Brock? or all?
talkradio55| 7.1.11 @ 11:38AM
That was David Brooks. But it doesn't matter because they're all a bunch of fruitcakes anyway.
Ted| 6.28.11 @ 9:17AM
Sooooo....... Conservatives should cease standing up for a principle once that principle becomes unpopular, unfashionable, or just inconvenient.....
Interesting.
This is why "conservatives" like Antle are more dangerous than the raving loons on the left.
W. James Antle III | 6.28.11 @ 10:51AM
This is a very interesting reading of a post in which I continue to stand up for a principle after it has become unpopular (in certain circles), unfashionable, and inconvenient. I merely explained why others are not similarly speaking up.
Occam's Tool| 6.28.11 @ 12:11PM
Well, I will continue to simply note that secular humanist driven societies do not breed to replacement. We are aging and dying as a society, with fewer young people per number of elderly than ever before in history. This will cause massive social/economic displacement.
We should be prizing our children, and societal institutions which help produce and raise them, more than ever before. Instead, we are doing the opposite. We are sowing the wind; and we will reap the whirlwind when we lose to the forces of sharia.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 4:32PM
I'm not seeing this. Presumably, the 3% gay population has remained stable over the centuries. The population of the USA continues to grow. We have spikes, as we do now, with baby boomers starting to hit retirement age. There is a slight boom-let from the boomers. The numbers seem with the statistical range and I would say are increasing at we now are at 310 million. When I was a young man it was around 200 million.
Are all Conservatives so full of doom and gloom?
Expanded to the world, there certainly is no shortage of people.
Quartermaster| 6.28.11 @ 6:55PM
Simple growth in numbers is not all it's cracked up to be. The question is "will the culture that spawned a civilization that surpassed the splendor of Rome survive?" Demography is destiny and way it appears at this point, people who do not share the founder's heritage will rule in the near future. Add in the morons that are anti-American as well, and you get a very grim picture of the future.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 7:17PM
Oh, I don't paint the picture that badly. I think there is a longing for a perfect history that really never existed. My guess is that part of the confusion of attributing the founding fathers with all this religion is today' s concept of the Trinity where God, Christ, and some ghost, are "one in the same." That' s fine if your a Catholic (and probably some other religions - I don't know). But, just because the founding fathers used the word "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence, don't jump to the conclusion this is your God and then infer Christ and the Ghost. If you look at the Masons, they refer to "Creator" but it is up to the individual Mason to determine if that "Creator" is God in the Judeo-Christian realm or nature or the cosmos or the power of the universe, and whether that Creator is sentient or not, is just energy, or dresses in long white robes, sounds like Raymond Burr and looks like Burl Ives. As you know, many of the founding fathers were Masons. This also was the time of the Age of Reason and the Age of Enlightenment - both concepts that move more toward science and symbolic meanings than of actual supernatural spirits.
I find the jump to infer today's flavor of Christianity upon the founding fathers to be somewhat of a stretch. I do not see any historical references to this.
A study of history would show we have weathered far worse times and survived. I have no doubt we again will survive and thrive.
TomMullen| 6.28.11 @ 2:11PM
Mr. Antle, your insidious homophobia shines through like usual. You cite percentages of the gay population which has been the typical evanglical political position - which is matter of factly untrue. Second, this school curricula argument is a red-herring to exploit the issue and send fear into the minds of gullible misinformed parents who have never met a gay couple. Your begining argument is a political one, Frum is merely taking a factual discussion and finally someone on the Right is being honest. Continue your Michele Bachmann thought-process sir, it will get you no where!!!
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 2:33PM
Way to go, anti-religious bigot!
Unfortunately for you, facts don't have a confession and Kinsey's been long since refuted. The whole reason the gay agenda's gotten nowhere has been the tiny proportion of the population which has an interest in it.
And apparently the vast majority of these live in New York City.
Red| 6.29.11 @ 3:20PM
54% of the people of the nation who now support gay marriage is hardly a 'tiny proportion' .
And even if not, the majority does not get to decide on the rights of the minority.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 4:35PM
Forget about facts. Few listen to them. I'd suggest staying with the 3% gay population as touted by the Evangelicals. I think it works in our favor. If we have only 3% of the population being gay, they are telling me that the end of the world as we know it will occur? We will spin into the Abyss of Hell for All Eternity, Amen?
Again, you look at the numbers and hand-wringing and you just can see how one is associated with the other. It seems kind of "Chicken Little-ish" to me.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 4:37PM
typo - should be: ...cannot see...
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 5:29PM
The population of slaves was relatively low in the antebellum States and yet the Civil War was fought nonetheless. Principle is not tied to relative percentage. Evangelicals, for example, are a minority. Yet homosexual activists like to present them as an oppressive majority.
good_wife| 6.28.11 @ 2:46PM
And that principle is bigotry
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 3:50PM
You need a better dictionary---unless homosexuality has become your religion, it's awfully hard to meet the bigotry definition for shunning a behavior.
TomMullen| 6.28.11 @ 5:32PM
Moron, homosexuality is NOT a behavior but an orientation. Because you spew hatred on an orientation it is just another brand of your bigotry - while utilizing every stupid sterotype in the world I am sure like your crack below about the Church
Quartermaster| 6.28.11 @ 6:57PM
It is defined by behavior.
Red| 6.29.11 @ 3:21PM
By WHO'S definition?
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 7:02PM
I've already posted the Catechism on this. The fact is, contra your bigotry, that the Church does NOT frown upon homosexual orientation. Indeed, homosexual orientation is considered to some degree a gift of God in that it allows homosexuals to partake in the sufferings of Christ---it is their Cross.
You can't understand it because you're blinded by your own selfishness---which is another Cross.
As the passage I posted demonstrates, the Church teaches we are NOT to discriminate against or mistreat our homosexual brothers and sisters. However, we are under no obligation to pretend that homosexual behavior is not a gravely disordered sexual sin. That is precisely what it is.
There are many, many people with homosexual orientations who never indulge them. They are some of the best examples we have in the Church. It's a shame you can't appreciate them.
Richard Munro| 6.28.11 @ 7:39PM
I have never heard of homosexuality being considered "a gift of God" in the Catholic Church. My pastor taught me to have the sin -homosexuality is considered sinful- but to love and have compassion for the sinner. Traditional Christian morality is clear: there are some immoral behaviors which humans should avoid because they are unnatural, unhealthy and harm the common good. One of these behaviors is fornication (a word whose context meant non-consensual sex usually with a female slave in a "fornix"); another was active homosexuality. The church does not teach hate against homosexuals; it teaches homosexuals should live chastely. Likewise the church does not hate sex; it just teaches that marriage means openness to children. The church teaches people to be responsible with their sexuality. Personally, I have no interest in what homosexuals do in the privacy of their homes. I do have a problem with elites foisting their opinions on the people in violation of popular sovereignty. I also resent deeply the implication that someone who does not embrace the Gay Agenda is as evil and retrograde as a White Supremacist. I don't hate anyone. I don't advocate violence against any group. For some marriage is a sacrament, for others it is just a word and for others it is a sentence. The real question is who will have the children and how will they be raised. It is entirely possible that people will procreate artificially without marriage and without partners and this will become the most common way to have children. To those who choose such a Brave New World I can only say I am personally happy to have been able to experience the love and closeness of a traditional family. What is good and worthwhile will endure; what is unhappy and nonproductive will not endure.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 7:48PM
Sure---from the Catechism:
"2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."
and
1820 Christian hope unfolds from the beginning of Jesus' preaching in the proclamation of the beatitudes. The beatitudes raise our hope toward heaven as the new Promised Land; they trace the path that leads through the trials that await the disciples of Jesus. But through the merits of Jesus Christ and of his Passion, God keeps us in the "hope that does not disappoint." Hope is the "sure and steadfast anchor of the soul . . . that enters . . . where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf." Hope is also a weapon that protects us in the struggle of salvation: "Let us . . . put on the breastplate of faith and charity, and for a helmet the hope of salvation." It affords us joy even under trial: "Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation." Hope is expressed and nourished in prayer, especially in the Our Father, the summary of everything that hope leads us to desire.
Our trials come to us and help us to share in the sufferings of Christ. Homosexual orientation is not something people ask for---they may be born with it; they may acquire it later---but it represents a trial for those who have it.
My wife and I just endured a loss; we viewed it through the lens of the Church as an opportunity to share in that most Christ-like of attributes---suffering. It is why, for example, when someone is sick or great pain they are encouraged to offer up their suffering to God for the sake of others.
This is the sense in which I meant that homosexual orientation may be a gift from God---it may be an invitation to join in the suffering of the Cross.
This pertains to orientation, obviously, and not behavior.
TomMullen| 6.29.11 @ 1:00PM
Regardless of your faith, don't lose site of the issue at hand because you are drifting. I am not a religious bigot, quite the other way around if your heard the Brooklyn Bishop recently; and in addition, other religions do embrace the sacrament of a homosexual union because gays are who they are through God. Now I will admit yes I am an athiest, I don't believe in any "doctrine" but THIS ISSUE REALTES TO CIVIL MARRIAGE LAWS so get off your catholic ride please.
Vincent Pinson| 7.4.11 @ 1:20AM
"...homosexual orientation is considered to some degree a gift of God..."
By whom? This would make God the author of sin. What blasphemologians are you reading? This one don't stick, Teflon.
Derek Leaberry| 6.28.11 @ 9:24AM
David Frum is a morally degraded, anti-Christian individual as are all his Foxhall Road groupies who afflict the internet with the Frum dogma of anti-conservative conservatism. Famously, Frum wrote a screed about a decade ago in NATIONAL REVIEW that sought to banish paleo-conservativces to the outer darkness for their opposition to the Iraq War, a position in which the paleos showed great foresight and the neo-conservatives and the Bush Administration were proved foolish. Isn't it about time that David Frum be written out of proper conservatism and cast out into oblivion?
Conserdude| 6.28.11 @ 9:42AM
Right on. Frum personifies smugness and opportunism. One year as a Bush speechwriter and he should be taken seriously?
Paul L.| 6.28.11 @ 3:24PM
The good news is that David Frum has pretty much written himself out of proper conservatism and into oblivion.
About a month ago, he write a piece called "Two Cheers for the Welfare State" in which he said he has changed the opinion he held for most of his adult life and now loves the welfare state and thinks American conservatives should simply focus on managing it better, as the "conservatives" in Canada and Europe do.
So Frum is no longer a small government conservative; he is not a fiscal conservative; he is now a social liberal; and most of his writing is devoted to mindless bashing of conservatives from Paul Ryan to Rush Limbaugh.
At best, Frum will end up as a Joseph Lieberman type of mildly hawkish liberal.
Most conservatives happily ignore Frum, having seen his complete apostasy coming a long time ago.
Tina B| 6.28.11 @ 9:29AM
"It's because most conservatives... now believe we are probably on the losing side of this debate. That probability makes vocally opposing same-sex marriage seem less worth the price of wounding the feelings of one's gay friends on the one hand and being viewed as morally equivalent to a white supremacist on the other."
I resonate with this. Furthermore, I feel the need to retire earlier than I had planned, and the tacit approval necessary to "get along" in the Public School System is partly the reason. I want to talk openly to my students about the cultural biases they are facing, and this zone is forbidden to me unless the children ask. Teaching 6th graders for only one year, and 8th grade children for 20, I was able to touch many lives with honesty and truth when they asked. But our hands are being tied more and more, and the culture has many more defenders than the Word seems to have.
Thanks for a good informative piece on David Frum then, and now. So goes the culture.
rendite| 6.28.11 @ 11:07AM
Tina B., I like your posts, I usually really do. And I hope that I am wrong on this one. 65% says I am wrong....but: "less worth the price of wounding the feelings one's gay friends...."
I have no idea what the author of this piece had in mind when he sought to equate opposing homosexuality with racism. There is ZERO equivalency.
Mr. Antle is not to be commended at all for what is above.
Hm..."wounding?"
If by "wounding" he means like blowing a bazooka-sized hole through their chests, well, yes, then "wounding" is in order. Really?!
A good friend does not smile and nod at another as he or she heads straight to Hell.
You like the Bible, right? Me too. Lots of wisdom there. Therein homosexuality and all its practices receive some extra wrath -- yes, in very prominent passages in the Bible. 'Depravity' -- a word we get from Paul as he describes several times in the book of Romans homsexuality as "unnatural." "Shameful, indecent, depraved, wickedness, evil, insolent, God-haters." Quite a long list of ills; the Apostle Paul does not mince words. See Romans 1 : 18 - 32.
Better to lose all your friends (if they really were friends in the first place?) than to remain silent on something like this. Yes, we are more than obliged to state that what they are doing is utterly evil.
Please, folks, read Romans chapter 1, verse 32. It sums it up quite well.
Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "resonate." I hope I do. If you somehow lose your job for telling a 6th or 8th grader the truth, well, then it was only a matter of time before this occurred anyway.
toolaloo| 6.28.11 @ 12:17PM
Right on, mate.
All of the joyous shouts and high-fiving over New York's decision will turn to hand-wringing and tears...its inevitable, or G-d will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah...heaven help us all.
Benjamin Bucholtz| 7.5.11 @ 7:06PM
You people are so blind. I'm a religious person, and I think religion has a lot of positive messages and stuff. But when people feel so certain that their religion is correct, and they live their life based on every word in a book that may or may not be based on God's word, it turns dangerous. I've never been able to understand how all you simple mortals seem to know what God wants. Furthermore, why is it that only certain passages in the bible seem to be binding to you. I'm sure you believe Moses was given the Torah at Mt. Sinai- why don't you condemn everyone who eats shellfish or pork? If I'm not mistaken, those who deny Jesus being the Son of God isn't taken too kindly in the Bible. Do you propose banning Jewish or Islamic practices? And, most importantly, you're talking about your personal religious beliefs. you're free to condemn homosexuals to your heart's desire, but why should they not legally be able to live their live's however they want. It seem like the same people who get so worked up over Shariah Law have no problem with Christian doctrine dictating our legal system.
Clint| 6.28.11 @ 9:31AM
Can New Yorkers Marry Their Sisters, Dogs & Have Harems Now ?
good_wife| 6.28.11 @ 2:47PM
Statements like this are why we think you are dumb.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 3:55PM
Statements like that are why we think you can't reason.
Given that the impediments against homosexual "marriage" are:
1. Moral - it is forbidden because homosexual behavior is immoral and cannot be sanctified;
2. Historical - for the vast length of human history, eon after eon, homosexual "marriage" has never been legal until the past generation nor normative ever;
3. Biological - homosexual unions are completely barren and incapable of sustaining the human race;
and
4. Political - the vast majority of Americans firmly oppose the concept of homosexual "marriage";
once these impediments are removed by allowing homosexual "marriage" how precisely do we continue to ban those other odious relationships?
We cannot---the impediments having been removed already.
Richard Munro| 6.28.11 @ 7:46PM
well-said. Polygamy and polyandry (legalized not de facto) as will as bigamy and incest may just be viewed as an "alternative life style."
What is next I wonder? Heaven knows, anything goes.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 7:51PM
I have yet to see an answer for this argument, which is usually derided as slippery slope, which it isn't. Once these particular impediments to homosexual marriage are removed, they are simply no longer valid---period. The response to every following claimant will simply be "...and so was homosexual marriage." The claims will simply be irrefutable on the same tortured logic which admits homosexual marriage.
The bulwark here is the role of the Church in marriage. As long as marriage is a sacrament, it is safe; as long as it is a secular contract, it is infinitely malleable and ultimately will be destroyed.
Vincent Pinson| 7.4.11 @ 1:23AM
good_wife -- why shouldn't one be allowed to marry his brother? Seriously, why can't two brothers marry one another?
Red| 6.29.11 @ 3:25PM
1.) We can prove incest is harm. Can we say the same for homosexuality?
2.) Unless your dog can give verbal consent and sign a contract, the answer's no.
Vincent Pinson| 7.4.11 @ 1:26AM
"We can prove incest is harm."
Can you? Really? What if it is by consent? What of two gay brothers want to marry? You say homosexuality cannot be shown to be harmful, right? You have only stated "incest is harm." You haven't proven anything. Why can't two brothers marry in NY?
Benjamin Bucholtz| 7.5.11 @ 7:10PM
FInd me two brothers in New York that actually have the desire to get married.
rendite| 6.28.11 @ 9:32AM
This vote in New York State was a travesty.
The problem: It was the wrong vote; this should not come up on a vote/ballot. But if it (sigh) must, then a popular referendum.
If up on statewide referendum, it would fail in the Empire State like everywhere else in the US.
Americans may wander some from their moral moorings, they surely do at times. But there is no place for the wanton immorality of homsexuality in this land -- and Americans know this.
Sadly bufoon judges, perverted politicians, and (ahem!) very questionable media types always push to take these key life decisions away from the people. This is why we consider our "ruling class" evil.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 10:03AM
I must disagree on the idea of putting the civil rights of a minority to the popular vote of the majority. Too many times in history we have seen the oppressor overrule the oppressed just by sheer numbers. In DC, having a long history of a large black population, a law there states just this - civil rights of a minority cannot be put to the popular vote. Oddly, despite a long history of oppression, the most vocal opponents to DC's same-sex marriage law were black clergymen. I suppose religion trumps color but it was surprising to me to see such little empathy.
Really, this is much ado about nothing. Just as in many other countries, same-sex marriage has been successful and has caused no significant social issues. The only objections seem to come from the religious crowd even though these are civil marriages and the participants are not even members of the complaining church.
It seems to me these complaints are the antithesis of true conservatism vs. right-wing social conservatism.
Ted| 6.28.11 @ 10:45AM
Oddly, the black churchmen understood that their struggle should not be hijacked to back something they oppose for religious reasons.
It is much ado about several important things. Not the least of which is the truth.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 11:51AM
Okay, without citing any religious objections which have no bearing on NY's secular law, please explain what truth it is you have to disallow same-sex marriage.
Occam's Tool| 6.28.11 @ 12:18PM
Dear Chuck,
a simple point. Purely utilitarian. Please find me a country that supports same sex marriage that is breeding to replacement or above.
That's all, folks. Maybe this makes me a maniacal Liberal.
DRed| 6.28.11 @ 1:15PM
Argentina
South Africa
Mexico (legal in some states, all states recognize)
Israel (recognizes gay marriage granted in other countries)
rendinte| 6.28.11 @ 11:08PM
False. OT's point above is correct. No society openly embracing homosexuality has a future.
Argentina's population is in DECLINE. There is no open homosexuality in Mexico outside the expensive tourism coastal resorts and the three larger metropolitan areas. Israel's population numbers are greatly skewed by the large number of annual new immigrant arrivals -- with families. There are no reliable population/demographics statistics for South Africa. Yes, even in year 2011. Plus, it is also, despite all its woes, a magnet nation pulling the destitute from many parts of Africa to it.
No, the point stands: There is no country (of the very few) which has embraced homosexuality that is "succeeding" by any measure, whether economically, entrepreneurially, or, most important, with families (means children & grandchildren).
Red| 6.29.11 @ 3:28PM
Those countries didn't collapse because of homosexuality. They collapsed for reasons completely unrelated.
Denmark was the very first country to legalize a form of gay marriage in 1989 and guess what?
They saw a drop in infidelity rates, suicide and STD's. That's a pretty good thing, don't you think?
It hasn't collapsed. Quite the contrary.
Vincent Pinson| 7.4.11 @ 1:28AM
"...a drop in infidelity rates, suicide and STD's."
Sources?
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 4:50PM
I am unsure these two issues are connected. It's much like the argument for DADT. "We can't have gays in the military!" Well, news-flash, they already are there. A country, whether or not it supports gay marriage, will maintain the same average number of gay people. Gay marriage or not, it would not make any difference. Other factors may be in play. I recall Japan is not "breeding to replacement" as you put it. It may well be that as a society becomes more affluent, it has less children? I have no idea. I run into few college professor parents that have 10 kids. To the contrary, it usually are people on the other end of the scale with the large families. Perhaps, they cannot afford to have the TV repaired so they must amuse themselves?
Quartermaster| 6.28.11 @ 7:06PM
Militant Homosexuality is a symptom of a larger disease that eventually tears down a country. When the barriers of morality are torn down, then the people will corrupt themselves. Lawlessness is now prevalent in this country, and that lawlessness is best represented in those who deny what marriage actually is.
Those countries built on the foundations of western civilization, that have secular humanism as their reigning philosophy are declining in every way, including numbers.
No civilization has ever pulled back from the brink, but we are already over the brink.
TomMullen| 6.29.11 @ 1:04PM
"Militant" homosexuality is simply people demanding NOT asking about being treated equally under the law you dumb shit. Just like I may call you a "militant religionist" for spreading ridiculousness about the noodle in the sky
DRed| 6.28.11 @ 10:54AM
NY doesn't have popular referendums.
Vincent Pinson| 7.4.11 @ 1:29AM
The Senate could have voted to put one on the ballot. You're wrong, DRed.
WL| 6.28.11 @ 9:34AM
Dear American Spectator Columnist.
David Frum is a useful idiot for the Left. He does nothing. He contributes nothing. He stands for nothing (except Liberal ideas). He does not do battle (Except against Conservatives).
Let him remain in obscurity. Let him rot in solitude. He and the Brooks idiot at NYT seem to keep getting exposure from US, the conservatives, their TARGET.
JUST STOP.
That is the problem with our cause. We continue to feel the need to find "relevance" in our "masters." BUT WE DON'T
And we need to quit hating and quoting the New York times as well. They are a biased left wing propoganda piece. That's it.
QUIT GIVING THEM ALL PLACE IN OUR DISCUSSIONS, and treat them as irrelevant critics that they are.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.28.11 @ 9:51AM
"QUIT GIVING THEM ALL PLACE IN OUR DISCUSSIONS"
I for one want analysis about what they are up to without having to have to read their ancillary drivel. I want this "analysis" from sources that actually know these people's work or know them personally enought to offer insight. I do not always agree with III, but you or I do not get to regulate his contribution or ability to "discuss" subjects you find offensive.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 9:43AM
This article and others like it is an example of the Liberal Ratchet, a curious view of conservatism which holds that liberals get to inflict outrages upon civilization which conservatives then defend less we "slide back" into the past.
It is a suicidal philosophy.
Not only ought we stop liberal outrages such as gay marriage but we ought to reverse course. Much of what is wrong today in the marital sphere comes from its secularization, not from homosexuals wanting to be part of an institution that is as tattered as once-holy matrimony. Divorce, contraception, and out-of-wedlock children are much larger issues than this.
This is simply the last straw.
Conservatives really ought to be interested in restoring republican virtues, beginning with a return to nuclear families as opposed to the atomic ones favored by those seeking to make us all wards of the state.
Instead, we get more weak-tea Eeyorism from Antle.
W| 6.28.11 @ 9:57AM
Mr. Antle, are you saying that opposition to gay marriage will be viewed the same same as support for segregation? Can you link up the NR editorials that you claim supported segregation? That is a serious charge to make.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 10:01AM
Just go to The Corner and watch Jason Lee Steorts and others make that very case, W.
W. James Antle III | 6.28.11 @ 11:04AM
Have you been reading the arguments SSM supporters are making,W? If you were, you would not have to ask that question.
The NR editorials date back to the 1950s and aren't available online in their entirety, to my knowledge. You can find references to them by googling. Unfortunately, most of the links are either from white nationalists celebrating NR's old position or liberals exaggerating its importance to the magazine, so I won't reproduce them here. But they can easily be found on your own search engine.
Current NR senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru notes the early opposition to the civil rights movement by many associated with NR in this recent piece:
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....sh-ponnuru
W| 6.28.11 @ 11:21AM
Mr. Antle, why should we accept the premise of SSM supporters that opposition to SSM is the same as favoring segregation?
W. James Antle III | 6.28.11 @ 11:28AM
I do not accept the premise. I think the premise is poisonous nonsense. I'm not agreeing with it, I am simply acknowledging the fact that this is what they say.
Quartermaster| 6.28.11 @ 7:11PM
But the poison is coursing through the veins of the body politic as we read and post here.
There were many opposed to the manner in which the civil rights movement operated. In the end, much of the body of civil rights legislation has been poisonous, as was predicted back in the 60s. It also spawned the immigration act of 1965, which has been just as poisonous.
Much of what I read from NR in those days was down on the civil rights movement for the way it operated and laws that resulted. It didn't take a Moses to predict what the increasingly liberal courts would do with the poison they were handed, and gleefully used.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.28.11 @ 10:12AM
Once again, it's amazing how many alleged conservatives want the state to do their bidding when it's their desire, but when it's not their desire it's a problem
You either a statist or not. There's no in-between.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 10:25AM
I am curious from reading the comments as to what is the definition of Conservatism. I am a Republican from the days of Ike, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush-41. Throw in Barry Goldwater, Nelson Rockefeller, William Safire, and William F. Buckley, Jr.
The Conservatism I know had zero to do with social conservatism and was along the lines of Libertarianism with limited government and expanded personal freedoms. Certainly, the idea of imposing secular laws to restrict people's freedoms based upon religious tenets was completely contrary to the principles of the Conservative Movement. The idea in the United States is that a person is allowed freedom to live as one chooses unless restricted by law. If the law is silent on the issue, it is presumed to be allowed.
From where, of late, has all this religious social conservatism come? How is having the Catholic or Mormon churches (chosen only as they are very large institutions with defined policies) impose their religious and moral interpretations on non-members any different than a Muslim cleric attempting to inject Sharia law into our secular laws?
I do not know when this shift from intellectual conservatism to ideological religious social conservatism occurred, or even why. It would seem to me that a true Conservative would embrace same-sex marriage as it removes a restriction from the law and allows more freedom while harming no one or no group. The only perceived harm and complaints received about same-sex marriage come from religious objections which should be limited only to those who are members of that church.
2Anglico| 6.28.11 @ 10:46AM
There were no laws saying Harry could not marry Harry. The homo-mafia tried to FORCE states to RECOGNIZE/LICENSE their BEHAVIOR. The homo-mafia were the ones calling for more "laws". We "social conservatives" have an absolute right "not to listen". See the difference?
As for a shift to "religious social conservatism", I guess you didn't know Reagan very well, did you?
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 12:22PM
Well, actually, there are laws saying two same-gendered people cannot marry. The law usually states that it recognizes marriage and then goes on to put in restrictions - the parties must be of age, not already married, not brother and sister, not of the same gender, and all that.
So, what we want is that restriction lifted from the law.
As far as Reagan goes, many politicians pay lip service to religion and do a good job at it. I am sure Reagan was quite religious but he was not a nutcase about it. Also, you may recall the "Dixie Democrats" from the South were all very religious and when Jimmy Carter did not turn out to be the poster boy for the ultra-religious right crowd as they had anticipated, a huge shift occurred and Reagan swept those people into what was my Republican Party - the "country club Republican" crowd of Rockefeller, etc., where the topic of religion rarely ever came up. It was all about business and limited government interference and such. Reagan dragged in the Fundamentalists (for their votes) causing much of the demise of the RNC we see today. The RNC is not at all as I remember it in my youth.
Quartermaster| 6.28.11 @ 7:16PM
You just want your immorality accepted as moral. Any country that refuses to recognize morality in their law will fall from the corruption they condone.
Homosexuality is a mental illness as well as being immoral. any guy that sees another guy in the same manner a normal sees a girl is horrifically sick.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 7:22PM
Bizarre. Do you ever get out of the house?
Red| 6.29.11 @ 3:35PM
The American Psychiatric Association says otherwise. They have decades of documentation and studies to support their position. http://www.soulforce.org/article/642
Unless you have a degree in mental health, you have no place to make that claim.
W. James Antle III | 6.28.11 @ 11:06AM
By your logic, the America of Buckley, Reagan, Goldwater, Rockefeller, and even the New York of last week were Mormon/Catholic theocracies because marriage was defined as a union of a marriage and a woman. That suggests to me that your intellectual conservative logic is defective.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 12:34PM
No, I do not believe so. As a young man, I rarely heard anything about religion in the Northeast where I am from. Some people attended church and some were quite devout. Most people of my age in the 1960's and 1970's grew up with the space race, science, and advancement. The church was kind of stodgy and boring and offered very little. I think most of us went to church either for a wedding or a funeral, but not for much else.
The reason marriage was defined as it was is simply because that was the tradition at the time. Certainly, gay people existed and always did but it wasn't until gays began to shake off the persecution heaped upon them and scientific studies came out and the APA dropped homosexuality as a "disease" and so on. I watched many friends go to shrinks to be "cured" and that never worked. Many married women, were unhappy, became drunks, and hated life. Very sad.
So, no, I cannot say those days were theocracies. More "social convention" than anything else. Eventually, societies evolve and become more tolerant of others - well, hopefully.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 1:05PM
It has nothing to do with tolerance. Homosexuals can vote, own property, work, assemble, and enjoy full citizenship rights.
Neither they nor anyone else, however, can DEMAND respect at the point of the bayonet for their behavior. That is the very definition of intolerance---on their parts. You see it in their shrieking reaction to those of us who will not redefine holy matrimony to suit them.
BTW, the same arguments were forwarded by divorce proponents as gay marriage proponents: how does it hurt you if a few people want to get divorced?, etc
We all see how that turned out.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 1:27PM
But, those impacts of which you speak are all religion-based. Your objections to same-sex marriage are, as you stated, against "holy matrimony." Well, we are not talking about "holy" anything. This is the secular, state-issued, marriage license. If your church does not wish to recognize or perform these ceremonies, that is up to the church. I could not care any less than if a Muslim cleric objected to my parents marriage. The church does not have a dog in this fight.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 2:17PM
The Church has every dog in this fight, given that marriage was a sacrament of the Church far longer than it was a trophy for gays or a piece of paper dispensed by the state.
The right to marry is a natural right conveyed by God; it is not determined by the state at all. We are not married because the state says we are but because God does.
If you don't care that others recognize your marriage, you've just done away with the argument for same sex marriage entirely.
After all, homosexuals can go to any gay bar in the land today and have a Unitarian proclaim them married. I don't care if they do; I do care that I not be forced to recognize their union as a marriage nor condone their behavior.
Much as I don't want to be forced to condone somebody's adultery. Why should I be so compelled?
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 5:00PM
Hardly. If my gay marriage makes no difference to the State, tell me how I can file jointly on my income tax forms.
And, who is forcing you to "recognize" anything. All I care about is the state marriage.
You see, your definition of marriage is different than mine. I will stick with how the state defines it.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 5:32PM
Then civil unions work just fine for you.
Feel free to file jointly anyway---all you'll be doing is paying the "marriage tax".
rendite| 6.28.11 @ 11:18PM
Teflon, thanks for your posts here today; I do appreciate them. You are, of course, correct. Marriage is from God. God designed the union of a man and woman as the foundations for families, a community, a nation, a future, in short, the man & woman united are the foundation for all life on this earth.
Thank you for patiently and decently sharing with readers here and this person, ChuckGG. Perhaps the Holy Spirit can move in Chuck's life, perhaps Satan's grip on him can be removed.
Chuck, it is really up to you. God does not need you. But you surely need God.
Red| 6.29.11 @ 3:41PM
Marriage existed long before religion as we recognize it. In days of old and even now, it was all about inheritance and property rights. In those days, women were viewed as having no rights and no say in who they were married to. It was about forging unions, trading flocks and all else. Despite the religious overtone, marriage is in large part about property rights and who is entitled to them. A spouse in the first on the list.
That's how it is.
TomMullen| 6.28.11 @ 4:26PM
No douce. We DEMAND civilty and equal treatment from government NOT from you. I don't care what you like or dislike. You're nothing but a sewer rat anyway.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 5:34PM
Learn how to spell before trying to insult someone. You're the reason gays get less respect than they're entitled to.
The government already gives you civility and equal treatment---try having dogs sicced on you like MLK Jr did before you dare to claim more.
TomMullen| 6.28.11 @ 5:50PM
My typos are allowed. Your dumb shit narrow-minded stupidy isn't. To large degree, blacks suffered inequality longer than gays. But gay people suffered respectively too, just in different ways and all because of the insufferable opinions of people like you. In the name of Jesus Christ, for decades the Catholic and evangelicals claimed I was nothing but a piece of dirt who is on fast track to hell, for me simply being who I am. Of course dogs weren't "sicked" on gays and lesbians, but try witnessing where a young teen was electrocuted under the command of Mormon Elders because that was a way to "cure" a person of homosexuality.
I will say this only once and to everyone of you F-sticks on this board - homosexuality is NOT a behavior - to express that is grossly antiquated thinking, plane stupid, and insulting to every reasoned man and woman. The bill in NY dealt with civil rights, nothing more and nothing less. And civil unions are NOT the same as codified by law. But most important is that marriage depicts what love is, and love is the reasongays get married - so go spit on someone else's parade - because gay civil marriage is here to stay and get used to it either by Court OR popular vote where religion doesn't rear its ugly head.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 6:57PM
Marriage does not depict what love is; marriage recognizes what a family is in the eyes of God.
There is no head uglier than yours, Tom. Homosexuality is a behavior; that is its very definition.
And civil rights are not ascribed on the basis of behavior. You had better get used to that.
And you will simply never get the popular vote as incapable as you are of reasoned argument or cloaking your bigotry. Grow up.
TomMullen| 6.29.11 @ 1:10PM
He Tef: I will agree that gay members who march and get all sexual in the public sphere and a means of feeling liberated - I call THAT a behavior in which makes me squirm probably like you seeing a straight guy get all tacky with women in your world (assumes you see that as a problem). But EVERY science and medical journal that is qualified and I AM TELLING YOU AS A GAY MAN, homosexuality is what I am from birth because I even learned certain behaviors like me being belligerent with your posts. Why can't you just accept what I tell you. I wouldn't rant on or hit my head against the wall if I was just so unsure about my own being - Christ!!
TomMullen| 6.29.11 @ 1:11PM
"homosexuality is what I am from birth because I even learned certain behaviors like me being belligerent with your posts." should read" homosexuality is what I am from birth before I even learned certain behaviors like me being belligerent with your posts."
Derek Leaberry| 6.28.11 @ 11:24AM
America didn't have these social disputes pre-1970 because issues like abortion and homosexual marriage were settled law or not even considered an issue. No state had legalized abortion until about 1970. For instance, neither Jack Kennedy or Richard Nixon brought up abortion in the 1960 during their debates because to have been for legal abortion in 1960 would have been political suicide.
As for sodomite marriage, no sane politician considered it other than a fringe issue until very recently. Homosexuality had been considered a perverted, disgusting and repellent social dysfunction until very recently. America has NEVER been a lawless, libertarian utopia. It has never been radically libertine until very recently. And maybe that is why the nation is falling into the abyss socially, morally and fiscally today. An immoral people not only engage in degenerate behavior, they don't pay their bills. Like the $ 1.5 trillion we aren't paying this year, and next, and the year after, and ten years after.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 12:48PM
I agree many of these issues did not come up back then. I do not even think they were on the radar screen. There was not the kind of communication and networking we have today and that would apply to any group of people.
There's a term I haven't heard: "Sodomite Marriage." Fortunately, most of society at least acknowledges and probably even knows some "Sodomites." Once "the enemy" has a face and it isn't much different than their own, attitudes change. Barry Goldwater has a gay grandson. I'm sure that affected his view and put a human face on this issue.
As far as Libertarian, I always am hesitant to use the word as people jump to the conclusion it is close to anarchy. No, I was referring to the concept of smaller government, less government interference in personal affairs (no more bedroom police), and a "live and let live" attitude. What you call Libertarian is what I would call the true Conservative. The big distinction I see today that I did not see 40 years ago is this interference of the churches into our secular laws. Certainly, they are entitled to express their opinions. I have a difficult time accepting their dumping of millions of dollars into ad campaigns and promises by the Catholic-funded National Organization for Marriage (NOM) to spend millions to kick legislators out of their offices who voted for NY's Marriage Equality law. If they want to go this far, then give up their tax exempt status and register as a PAC just as the rest of us did. Hiding behind a Roman collar is pretty low.
Derek Leaberry| 6.28.11 @ 2:14PM
America has never been a libertarian paradise. Not in 1607. Or 1620. Or 1776. Or 1788. Or 1981. I suggest reading David Hackett Fischer's "Albion's Seed" to understand that although America was born a land of limited government it was certainly no libertarian fantasyland.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 5:04PM
No, I never said or implied it was Libertarian. However, some of the concepts of limited government and personal freedoms are shared. When I look at the religious crowd today, all I see are religious institutions to which I do not belong attempting to change my secular laws. I am no interest whatsoever in changing any church laws. They may do as they please as long as they leave me alone.
TomMullen| 6.28.11 @ 2:36PM
Derek: Heil Hitler!!!!
Derek Leaberry| 6.28.11 @ 4:21PM
Let me compliment you on your very intelligent, thoughtful comment.
TomMullen| 6.28.11 @ 6:36PM
And this is thoughtful?
"As for sodomite marriage, no sane politician considered it other than a fringe issue until very recently. Homosexuality had been considered a perverted, disgusting and repellent social dysfunction until very recently. America has NEVER been a lawless, libertarian utopia. It has never been radically libertine until very recently. And maybe that is why the nation is falling into the abyss socially, morally and fiscally today. An immoral people not only engage in degenerate behavior, they don't pay their bills. Like the $ 1.5 trillion we aren't paying this year, and next, and the year after, and ten years after."
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 6:53PM
It is history.
Perhaps you can point to the pre-1960s sources claiming homosexuality to be a normative, wonderful, and attractive social station. Acknowledging that it used to be considered absolutely repellent to most Americans is simply recognizing a truth---adultery also used to be considered repellent; thus "The Scarlet Letter", no?
It is a good thing in my view that homosexuals are not mistreated today; they are our brothers and sisters and deserving of the human dignity we all possess. This is not the same thing as saying we must celebrate their lifestyle, which is why you simply won't accept this reality.
It is not enough that homosexual behavior not be shunned---you want it EMBRACED.
And that is something the vast majority of us simply will never do.
TomMullen| 6.29.11 @ 1:15PM
I don't need to. Pre-1960's also saw women as effin chattel to their husbands pretty much, and blacks as "niggers."
Both attitudes are rarely demonstrated today. Homosexuality was misunderstood then as it is to you today. I don't care that you don't embrace me or us, what I do care is that our laws treat us equally. You are the one running off topic.
Red| 6.29.11 @ 3:48PM
Here's hte thing; we didn't know any different then because we just accepted what we were told through the cnetureis.
Then studies were actually done and after years and years of research, the American Psychiatric Association deemed that homosexuality wasn't harmful and was in fact, normal.
i beg to differ; homosexuals are STILL mistreated today. Not just here in the states, but abroad as well. Jamaica is considered one of the most homophobic regions on earth. In South Africa, even though they have legalized gay marriage, gays still face unspeakable abuse. Lesbians are often raped by men in an attempt to 'correct' them.
Life style indicates choice. Who would choose to be something so reviled by those such as you?
Seeing as how now 54% of the population supports gay marriage, your 'vast majority' claim fails. And even if it were true, that doesn't make it okay for you to say they can't marry the person they love, who just happens to be of the same sex.
Todd S| 6.28.11 @ 11:43AM
You are in left field to compare Catholic and Mormon Churches opposition to gay marriage to Muslims trying to impose Sharia law. First off, they have every right in a free society to voice their opposition to such a clear perversion of the Judeo-Christian tradition this country was built on. It has always been established that marriage is a social contract between a man and a women to have families that society cannot exist without. It is beyond silly to say that this is not so and that gay marriage is not an attempt to change this bedrock of society. Imagine telling Thomas Jefferson, George Washington or Abraham Lincoln that gay marriage is a civil right? They would be stunned that anyone would make that argument and would clearly state that it would be destructive to society and against Natural Law.
Second, you clearly do not understand what Sharia law or you are dishonest is if you are trying to make an equivalence between the two. Does the Mormon Church seek to have total control of your life by physical force or violence if necessary? If someone does not want to remain in the Catholic or Mormon Church, they are free to walk away and do what they please and there is no such thing as a honor killing like you see with Muslims.
Do you really think social conservatism in some new phenomenon? Ronald Reagan and William F Buckley Jr for example were always a part of it and showed you cannot separate morality of the Judeo-Christian tradition from conservatism. When you do, you get people like Nelson Rockefeller who stand for nothing. Or your Arnold Schwarzenegger as a modern example.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 12:56PM
Actually, I like Rockefeller and Arnold. I didn't hear much religious dogma from them.
As far as the horror stories of Muslim honor killings, are you sure you want to go down that path? Christianity has a long, long history of burning heretics at the stake and invading lands in the name of their version of God. Apparently, though, Christianity has evolved (egad!) and this kind of behavior now is not acceptable. I suppose someday the Muslims will get there, too. Given the communications of today and the new "Arab Spring," it might not be that far off. A couple of generations, maybe?
Once again, just to restate all this - I do not recall from 40 years ago ever hearing this much about religion in the Conservative movement. This is a relatively new phenomenon.
Todd S| 6.28.11 @ 1:38PM
The fact that you like Rockefeller and Arnold proves my point. Those guys are no way related to conservatism fiscal or social. How exactly did Arnold solve California's fiscal problems?
Hoping for Islam to reform is a fools wish. Compare what Mohammed and Jesus taught and how they lived their lives and you will see exactly what the problem with thinking that is. As long as a warlord pedophile is said to be the perfect example, there is little hope for real reform. All we can do is to keep them in their place and not let them ruin our civilization like their zealots want to do.
Just because you grew up in a non-religious environment doesn't change the fact that many conservatives did and believe in the Judeo-Christian philosophy the greatest nation on Earth was founded on. The fact you think it is some new phenomenon shows that you are out-of-touch and don't know history. I don't believe anyone was talking about gay marriage 40 years ago whether liberal or conservative because it was a non-starter.
Todd S| 6.28.11 @ 1:39PM
thinking that they will reform i should say
TomMullen| 6.28.11 @ 2:40PM
Todd: you are woefully short in understanding the Conservative element in the U.S. - it was NEVER about religious conservative theocracy until gays started standing up from being abused and scape-goated by creeps like you and the Pat Robertson's of the world sprung up stealing money and get their media campaigns in line. Even Reagan never uttered one anti-gay word in his tenure - unlike George W.
Todd S| 6.28.11 @ 3:35PM
Listen you lying sack of crap, tell me when Ronald Reagan ever said he supported the rights of gays to get married? And tell me what a religious conservative theocracy as you put it has anything to do with gay marriage? I am talking about Natural Law which this country was founded on. Do you really think Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington or Abraham Lincoln would claim a right for gay marriage? The fact that you believe in marriage as it has always been known between a man and a woman does not make you an anti-gay bigot. Go ahead with their Civil Unions but marriage is not to be defined anyway that people like you want. Gay marriage is a invented modern construct period.
TomMullen| 6.28.11 @ 4:18PM
perhaps because people like you and your cohorts and your narrow-minded (my way or the highway) idiocy are finally feeling the brunt of people whether its 3% or 20% being ostricized for simply being WHO THEY ARE douchebag!!!! And I never said Reagan "supported" gay rights, he as far as I remember never ever went on a anti-gay crusade like you or George W or Pat Robertson. You are a stupid stupid man to bring historical perspective. Do you think gays just popped out of the woods in the last 50 years? Or do you think Jefferson probably knew one or two gay members of his surroundings? Do you think being gay is such a wonderful thing and easy to come out to face the brutal insults from the majority whether it was during Jeffersonian times or present? Thankfully we are more civilized today, unless people like you are spewing hate
Todd S| 6.28.11 @ 5:46PM
Typical of the gay mafia to project their hate to others. I said nothing hateful but stated a clear position that marriage has always been defined as between a man and a women and that gay marriage is a modern construct. I don't care if someone decides they want to live a gay lifestyle, that is their choice but to redefine marriage for their proclivities is not acceptable in my opinion.
Where did I say gays are anything new? I made the clear point that gay marriage has never even been considered an option until the past couple decades and now people like you think anyone that doesn't agree with gay marriage must be a bigot. I don't take my cues from Pat Robertson or any other preacher but from the Judeo-Christian moral ethic and I certainly won't apologize for it. Why are you so intent on redefining the definition of marriage when Civil Unions are already available?
TomMullen| 6.28.11 @ 6:40PM
What the f is a Judeo-Christian moral ethic? How is that relevant in the lives of all human beings? We are different. My morality is not the same as yours. And you are not very learned on the differences between civil union and marriage, in addition, for some reason you are utterly closed minded to see the rude second class status it depicts - but you are so mighty to judge, huh?
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 5:09PM
Quite accurate, Tom. If Todd would read a bit of history of the Conservative Movement, he'd find nothing relating to social religious conservatism as the whole point of the Conservative Movement was for less burdensome government and freedom for business and individuals. The whole religious claptrap did not show up until Jerry Falwell waddled into RNC HQ demanding his place at the table for the votes he delivered.
Todd S| 6.28.11 @ 5:54PM
You are an admitted Rockefeller Republican and yet you proclaim to know the history of the Conservative movement? Tell me how someone like William Buckley was anything but a God fearing social conservative? Just admit that you are a gay marriage troll ChuckGG and stop talking nonsense about how social fiscal conservatives are the same as Muslims who want Sharia Law. I think there is a rather clear difference in opposing gay marriage than to advocate for the stoning of homosexuals that happens under Sharia Law but I guess that is a hard distinction for the gay mafia to accept.
TomMullen| 6.28.11 @ 6:40PM
God, Todd you are so stupid.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 6:47PM
You've never heard of Russell Kirk, have you, Chuck?
How about William F. Buckley, Jr?
How about Edmund Burke?
Adam Smith?
Brent Bozell?
Ronald Reagan?
Thomas Sowell?
There is no shortage of social conservatives, past and present, who were opponents of Falwell and yet remained social conservatives.
"The Theory of Moral Sentiments" would be a good place to begin your education in the subject, the Bible apparently being too much to ask for you to crack.
You need to read up on your natural law. Ignorance of it is what adds to your lack of persuasiveness and perhaps to your erroneous belief that rights are government-created things.
Wayne | 6.28.11 @ 12:59PM
Not true at all. I have no religion and I am not a social conservative. What I see is that the definition of marriage is out of the purview of government. It is defined as part of natural law, and it is not something that government has the right to redefine. The more libertarian argument is that people can engage in the behavior they choose, they just don't have the right to change the definitions of terms that we have accepted through natural law. This argument has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 1:33PM
I see your point about government involved in marriage and I agree, but the fact is that they are and society is geared around marriage as far as insurance, tax laws, inheritance, health care and all that. All we want is a place at the table and some assurance from the laws that we will be treated in the same legal manner as are other married couples. "Civil Unions" make sense but for many legal reasons these are not equivalent. The easier method is just to call it "marriage" so the law is blind to the participants of the marriage contract. In other words, so you don't end up with "straight marriage" and "gay marriage." It's just "marriage" and call it good.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 2:20PM
Civil unions are perfectly equivalent legally---that was the whole point in their creation.
What you want is for homosexual relationships and behavior to be considered morally licit by the vast majority of Americans who do not deem them so. Thus you hijack marriage because "civil unions" doesn't convey the moral imprimatur the sacrament of marriage does.
You give the game away with "call it good." It is NOT good. You will never compel me or anyone else to call it so.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 5:16PM
Not at all. Morality is in the eye of the beholder. I know I am a moral person. I care for others and do not take advantage of those less intelligent or in less fortunate circumstances.
And, no, Civil Unions have a real legal problem. That is, they are not recognized across many state lines. Plus, you could have a state that says it recognizes a marriage from Maryland but does not recognize a Civil Union from Maryland. If the term "marriage" is used, the laws across the land are blind to the gender makeup of the parties in the marriage. It is a legal fine-point, I agree, but one that exists. Also, the law has a problem with two concepts being identical but differently named. If the two concepts, in fact, are the same, then they need to be called the same. Again, a legal issue.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 5:49PM
Morality is not in the eye of the beholder---the revulsion against murder is universal, for example.
The problems with civil unions are less than with marriage, 32 states now having passed legislation protecting marriage and the DOMA being in place federally. Six states---and only six---have passed legislation supporting homosexual "marriage".
Given the geographic clustering of that 3% of the population, perhaps those six are sufficient. But that would be the case for civil unions too.
Red| 6.29.11 @ 3:52PM
So that makes it okay to restrict gay couples access to it?
No, it doesn't.
If you were in the hospital and were dying and your spouse couldn't see you because hospital staff only allowed family members access, would you say that? Because this happens quite often with gay couples.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 5:49PM
Morality is not in the eye of the beholder---the revulsion against murder is universal, for example.
The problems with civil unions are less than with marriage, 32 states now having passed legislation protecting marriage and the DOMA being in place federally. Six states---and only six---have passed legislation supporting homosexual "marriage".
Given the geographic clustering of that 3% of the population, perhaps those six are sufficient. But that would be the case for civil unions too.
TomMullen| 6.28.11 @ 2:19PM
Thank you Chuck. ABSOLUTELY dead-on. THE State Conservative Party (NY) went from supporting a candidate who supports gay marriage (Rick Lazio) until this year when they made a big stink - and of course they were dismissed. They, like Mr. Antle have embraced the christian right (wrong). Buckley IS turning over in his grave.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 5:30PM
Thanks, Tom. I am constantly amazed at how concepts and issues like this evolve over time. I am a Republican but am sorely disappointed in what has become of my Party. I hear the ravings of the Tea Party Express (the Waffen SS of the Tea Party) and all this religious hoo-hah that we never before heard in the prior decades. I hear Bachmann asking for an "in-depth report" on members of Congress to see if they are "anti-American?" Does any of this crowd even know who Joe McCarthy was? The dingbat factor is just off the scale. Clearly, something has happened since the 1980's. Perhaps, history is no longer taught? Bachmann and Palin have no idea about history.
When I was growing up, it was considered embarrassing to be caught saying something that was inaccurate. That "shame" seems to have disappeared! Now, we have public figures that really just ought to check their facts before they open their yaps.
And, another point: Why has intellectualism become a dirty word? Buckley was perhaps the finest wordsmith I ever heard. Now, we have the biggest bunch of dolts I ever have seen who cannot put two words together or ever have had an original thought.
Those of us from the old Republican party (now inaccurately called RINOs), were sitting in the bar at the yacht club, having a Manhattan (up), and discussing weekend plans on the Cape. In waddles Jerry Falwell, bible in hand, and the place went to hell in a handbasket.
I am about ready to jump ship and become an Independent. To paraphrase Reagan, "I didn't leave the party, the party left me."
rendite| 6.28.11 @ 10:42AM
Above Chuck CG asserts homosexuals are "harming no one or no group." Oh? Ask the orphaned child "forced" into an adoption to a homosexual couple.
Would you want to be that child at, say, age 4 or 6 brought into that perverted "home?"
Even children know that it takes a man and woman to procreate, to make a home. To nuture. To raise.
So, Chuck, let's see you at age 5 being given as a ward of the state to Sven and Allan, two men now living together just outside Boston. This is now your "home" for the next 13-14 years....
Is this where you will want to return at the college semester breaks? At Thanksgiving? Will you be bringing friends over to visit? What kind of siblings do you think you might have? At what point will you have enough courage to tell them that you find it terribly awkward when they both come to your school events? To your sports games?
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 12:02PM
Gosh, I guess I will have to ask our 11 year old daughter in a couple of years what she thinks of all this. Right now, she's a happy kid, enjoying life, doing well in school, and living in the suburbs with all kinds of families, straight, gay, and single-parent. The world you people describe is not the world I see nor am I in.
You really are hung-up on living up to the expectations of other people. Fortunately, we do not live in an area where this is any concern. Perhaps, you do.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 2:25PM
If you were not hung up on living up to the expectations of other people, Chuck, you wouldn't be seeking gay marriage AT ALL.
It is this quest for respectability which drives you. Unlike blacks of a generation gone by, you can vote, work, own property, and are neither imprisoned nor harmed with impunity. This is not a civil rights issue despite your attempts to make it one. Yours is an association based on behavior; Americans have every right to abhor your behavior. There was recently a big push by some adulterers club to promote affairs---Americans reacted with disgust, as well we should. It is only a matter of time, one supposes, until this blossoms into the next great "civil rights" movement.
Live your life as you like. But you have no right to compel me or anyone else to condone much less celebrate how you choose to live it.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 5:34PM
Wrong, again. If you can tell me how my partner and I can file jointly on our tax returns (State & Federal) and do all the other "legal stuff" that straight married people do, then I will give up my quest for same-sex marriage.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 5:50PM
You really want that marriage tax, huh?
Change the IRS rule.
TomMullen| 6.28.11 @ 2:21PM
Rendite, you are disgusting. And Mr. Antle, please take special note of Rendite misinformed b.s. that is what YOU are spreading, grave intellectual mis-truths and illogical argument - assuming Rendite can think through an argument fairly
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 2:41PM
You spout nothing but hysteria. Stereotypes only die when you stop living down to them.
David T| 6.28.11 @ 10:55AM
The church needs to stop acting as an agent of the state when it comes to marriage. Legal, state-sanctioned marriage should be performed solely by civil authorities. If a couple wants a sacramental marriage, they should get a legal marriage certificate and then approach the church. If the church refuses, in the case, say, of a same-sex couple, the state would not be able to force the issue. Granting a sacramental marriage would be solely a church function.
DC| 6.28.11 @ 11:14AM
David, the problem with what you're suggesting (not unreasonably) is that two-track marriage isn't acceptable to the leftist and gay activists driving this whole queer "marriage" movement. Most queers couldn't care less whether they're "married" or not. The leftists activists care because they know that state sanction for their unions will legally force churches to recognize these unions as "marriage," whether the churches or their attendees like it or not. And the point made by others about children forced into homo houses as adoptees is equally valid, because it's the other thrust of the overall leftist goal: the state will tell you what your church can do, and it will control what children will be taught and how they will be raised. If that means forcing foster kids to be raised by 3 moms and a "dad," or a dad with 10 "wives," or two dads and 3 dogs, etc., then who are you, you wretched, backwards white Christian puke, to stand up and cling to your God, guns and religion?
So to the "Big Government" comment, below from Ms Jessica--you're focused on the wrong statists. Conservatives could live with a two-track system of marriage, but the left, the true masters and enforcers of Big Government, never, ever will, because it would not destroy two of their primary enemies: Christian churches and children.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 12:08PM
DC - you really are way off with your points. I could not care less if a church recognizes my marriage. There are plenty of churches out there to perform same-sex ceremonies if I cared to have one. All I am concerned about is the legal status granted by a civil, secular marriage. If a church does not wish to perform a same-sex marriage that is up to them. If a gay couple wants their church to perform a marriage ceremony then that is between that couple and their church.
My friends who have gone to Canada or those states that allow same-sex marriage have never said to me that they had a big fight with their church to perform a ceremony. Some were married by Justices of the Peace while others were married in a church that welcomed same-sex marriages.
DC| 6.28.11 @ 12:53PM
ChuckieGayGay: you're lying and you know it. Or you're delusional: the leftists in this country will absolutely not rest until, contrary to the b.s. you're trying to toss about, churches are either forced to perform gay "marriages" or forced to close. There will not be an option. The state (meaning, the federal government) will dictate to the states that a valid marriage license consists of a state sanction, period, and a church license is an optional part of that, BUT no church will be able to sanction a marriage unless it conforms to state requirements. You know this, right? Or do you think conservatives and non-queers are just too stupid to understand and foresee your obvious end goals?
This has nothing, zero, absolutely nada to do with the freedom of queers like you to go off and "marry" and do whatever it is you do. Personally, I don't care--but I know what the goal of your leftist brethren is, I know the endpoint of all of this, and it involves destroying churches that espouse a traditional Christian faith, and the state telling us how our children must be raised. Period. As you don't (can't) deny this, and you're not clever enough to bullshit me or anyone else paying attention, go back to gay world--I'm sure there are more friendly sites for you out there.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 1:07PM
My, my, very vindictive. No, again, you are incorrect. No state or Federal law will force churches to perform same-sex marriages. It just is not going to happen. Right now, a church is allowed to not perform a wedding ceremony for inter-racial couples, couples where one or more of the participants was divorced, or even inter-faith marriages. The separation of church and state goes two ways. Churches are not taxed because they are not part of the secular, governmental world.
If churches close, and many have, it is because of attendance and probably costs (but not taxes).
I cannot imagine why you think we would care about any of what the church has to say except that they are dumping millions to override our secular laws.
So, believe what you may. I never will change your mind. The only reason I found this blog is because I was alerted to it by a Google New Alert webcrawler.
TomMullen| 6.28.11 @ 2:23PM
Purely stupid. Is it respectable to even refute, no but I will. I DON'T FREAKING WANT TO STEP FOOT ON YOUR CHURCH SEEKING PERMISSION OR THREATENING LITIGATION. Your church as enough litigation to worry about.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 5:39PM
Ha! Touche!
Don't they though? Close to 5,000 priests, a massive cover-up to the highest levels of the church, tens of thousands of reported cases, almost no acceptance of fault, little consideration for the victims and lots of consideration for protecting the church, all for decades, and over $2B paid out to "settle" these cases.
And, they have the nerve to be throwing bricks. The unmitigated gall of it all.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 6:02PM
Yes, you really do credit to your cause by demonstrating religious bigotry.
Homosexuals in the clerical ranks were a big part of the problem---80% of the acts of sexual abuse according to the John Jay study was homosexual in nature.
Red| 6.29.11 @ 3:56PM
Speaking out in favor of gay marriage is NOT religious bigotry.
Homosexuals are attracted to those of the same sex. What you are talking about are pedophiles. They went after these boys because they had ready, easy access to them. NOT because they were male.
ChuckGG| 6.29.11 @ 7:14PM
That is true but I would preface that with saying they were pedophiles first. The John Jay study classified (incorrectly) pedophilia as acts with a person 10 years and younger. With criteria, vastly different than the legal and APA standard of 17, the pedophilia case numbers were also in the 20% range (all these numbers are from memory so I may be slightly off). However, if you use the legal/APA standard of 17, then the percentage rockets up to the 80% bracket, so clearly the priests were diddling with teens.
And, I would ask you - what better place to go for a 1950's homosexual male, brainwashed that he is a sinner, and repressed at every move, than the RCC? He can become a priest, get respect from the community, try to discover why he is a "sinner" and work on absolution, and not get married to a woman (he's disallowed to marry). To me, this seems like the perfect hiding spot.
I also find it interesting that as society has come to accept gays, learns there are gays in their own family, sees the gay family up the street, and so on, that there are fewer and fewer men signing up to join the priesthood. I have read on this blog stranger attempted inferences (societies die off as homosexuality is accepted, e.g.).
Just an observation.
Todd S| 6.28.11 @ 6:02PM
All because they had gay priests (and other weirdos) who could not control themselves. If the Catholic Church would realize that they are mistaken about priests not being allowed to get married (to a woman), they wouldn't have the problems they have. God did not intend for us to be celibate but to have children in a marriage relationship. The Catholic Church is indeed wrong about marriage but not the way you think.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 6:40PM
How then do you explain the sexual abuse by Protestant clergy? By Orthodox clergy?
Both do not have priestly chastity as a norm.
How do you explain the LACK of sexual abuse by female clergy? They are subject to the same vows of chastity.
How do you explain the sexual abuse of children in public schools? Teachers, principals, coaches, and administrators take no vow of chastity.
You do see the point, Todd?
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 6:41PM
Here's just one place to get an understanding of the size of the sexual abuse scandal OUTSIDE of the Catholic Church:
http://reformation.com/
There are websites regarding sexual abuse in every major denomination and community. Google them.
ChuckGG| 6.29.11 @ 7:17PM
Small potatoes compared to the RCC.
LB| 7.1.11 @ 3:58AM
You do realize that in Canada no church is obliged to marry gay couples, right? Why would it be different in the US?
Jessica| 6.28.11 @ 11:00AM
You Big Government types crack me up. Government has no business sticking its nose in marriage, a religious institution.
And they're only 3% of the population? And yet you believe that tiny minority is going to DESTROY marriage?? (like heterosexuals with a 50% divorce rate didn't already beat everyone to the punch!)
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.28.11 @ 11:31AM
Who in the hell do you think you are? Bringing logic, reason and facts to a gay/marraige/abortion "discussion" goes beyond the pale. Begone, wench there are dishes to do.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 12:12PM
I discovered long ago that attempting to speak logically, or trying to explain that marriage in the USA consists of two parts - the secular state marriage license and an optional religious ceremony, was just a waste of time. They don't get it and they are not going to get it. Heck, they won't even acknowledge the difference.
Wayne | 6.28.11 @ 12:55PM
Maybe you were not being as logical as you think.
Wayne | 6.28.11 @ 12:54PM
Can you justify incest laws in same sex marriages?
Javier Gonzalez| 6.28.11 @ 11:44AM
Actually, according to the latest polls, most Americans now support legalizing same-sex marriage, especially the young, well-educated, urban, and Northeast/Pacific residents. Moreover, a new Quinnipiac polls out today shows high levels of support for same-sex marriage amongst New Yorkers.
"New York State voters support 54 - 40 percent a law allowing same-sex couples to marry, with voters under 35 supporting the measure 70 - 26 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Voters 35 to 64 years old also support the measure, while voters over 65 oppose it 57 - 37 percent. Support remained consistent before and after passage of the bill.
White Catholics split 48 - 48 percent on same-sex marriage. Jews support it 67 - 30 percent, while white Protestants oppose the measure 54 - 40 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Voters who say they have no religion support the measure 78 - 17 percent.
Voters split 47 - 46 percent on whether a same-sex marriage bill will pressure religious groups to perform such marriages. There will be pressure, white Protestants say 52 - 39 percent. White Catholics split 50 - 48 percent and Jews say no pressure 55 - 38 percent. "
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseID=1618
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 12:13PM
Gosh, more of that logic and those facts creeping in! I'm not sure this is the right blog for you.
Wayne | 6.28.11 @ 12:52PM
And if a poll changes after the law changes, can we cancel out the "marriages" that happened in the meantime?
Corwyn| 6.28.11 @ 11:48AM
Mr. Antle says: "Marriage will no longer be premised on parents not abandoning their children at will." Really?! Does Mr. Antle think so little of conservative values and our ability to raise moral children that he raises the specter of child abandonment as the result of giving the same rights to gay couples? If anything, such comments suggest weak moral character lies closer to his home than in the home of the gay couple across the street. I am confident that I can raise my children to be moral people regardless of what the neighbors might be doing nextdoor.
NotALibertarian| 6.28.11 @ 12:13PM
I don't understand why no one is talking about the tremendous opportunity Republicans have been handed to outreach to the Hispanic and black communities. People like Frum have continually bemoaned conservative's close-mindedness, and the way it supposedly hampers us with minorities. We now have proof that traditional marriage is an issue that would attract blacks and Hispanics to the GOP. But somehow Mr. Frum, who was so concerned about outreaching in the past, seems too busy looking at the the sea of educated, white hipster-faces to notice.
Occam's Tool| 6.28.11 @ 12:15PM
By the way, Canada is aging, and not breeding to replacement.
Just sayin.'
Red| 6.29.11 @ 4:00PM
You say gays are a minority, and yet you think they won't have enough kids???
People are STILL having children, genius. Just not as many as they used to and not all at once. It's been PROVEN that first world countries have considerably lower birthrates than countries such as India. People are marrying later in life and getting an education and have careers.
Wayne | 6.28.11 @ 12:49PM
Another Spectator writer who thinks somehow the government has the right to change the definitions of terms. What gives a state of the federal government that right? Can it change the definition of property to mean "Leased from the government"? It is the redefining of terms that eventually makes the term itself meaningless. The semantic argument is the legitimate argument. If the government could change a definition of a term to fit one special interest group, then it can change it again and again to fit other special interest groups. It would also need to refactor all other semantic relationships formed by the definition. For example sex is part of the Man-Woman definition, but why would it need to part of a new definition. So what is the purpose of incests laws? They certainly would make no sense in Man-Man and Woman-Woman definitions. Unless we are willing to refactor these laws, we make the definition itself meaningless hence we are making marriage meaningless.
The solution is simple. Marriage is not in the constitution, therefore the government has no business being in the marriage business.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 1:20PM
Wayne: "The solution is simple. Marriage is not in the constitution, therefore the government has no business being in the marriage business."
Certainly, that is a valid point. Unfortunately, that shipped sailed long ago. So, unless we undo a bunch of stuff, it's going to be really hard to un-bake that cake. The State-issued, secular, marriage license has long been established in the courts as a contract. That is why in a divorce that it has to go to court to dissolve the contract legally. The marriage contract brings along a ton of legal issues such as insurance and inheritance, and health-care and visitation rights. Plus, child custody matters and so on.
From the same-sex marriage viewpoint, all we want is this same legal contract which for many legal reasons really needs to be called "marriage" (as the inter-state laws then will be blind to the participants in the specific marriage contract). If a gay couple wishes to have a religious ceremony, there are plenty of churches out there that will perform the ceremony. Of course, a religious ceremony, straight or gay, carries no weight legally, unless there is a state-issued marriage license.
I think we are stuck with the two worlds - state-issued marriage license (contract) and the optional religious ceremony. It would have been nice if the state had called their contract something other than "marriage" such as "civil union," but they didn't. It should have been more like Europe where two weddings are held - one at Town Hall and the other in a church, but as I said before, that ship has sailed.
DC| 6.28.11 @ 1:39PM
ChuckieGayGay: you're an insufferable, delusional, condescending idiot. After cleverly ignoring what I said above, and restating your oh-so-tolerant bona fides, you drop down and make (without knowing it) precisely the point I made, above: "Of course, a religious ceremony, straight or gay, carries no weight legally, unless there is a state-issued marriage license."
Now, why in the world would churches spend money to oppose state-forced gay "marriages?" Because the churches (and you, and I) all know that the end goal of the gay "marriage" movement is the elimination of any religious component to marriage, and that is fundamentally, inalterably opposed to (most) churches' teachings; furthermore, the churches (and you, and I) all know that once the state decides that marriages are whatever they say they are, rather than what churches say they are, then the churches lose any discretion to define it, and the state will only sanction what it wants to, and enforce such policies AGAINST the churches that resist. Will you please have just a shred of common decency and admit that this is your, and your movement's, and the left's goal? Is it so hard to admit? There's a war on here, as you well know, I just want you to admit you've chosen sides, and stop publicly obfuscating. Despite the sky-is-green world you're pretending to live in, you and I both know better. The state will decide what marriage is as a matter of positive, not natural, law, or it won't, and natural law (sorry, applies whether you like it or not) either will survive as the foundation of American laws, or it won't. There's no middle ground here, or, I should say, there can't be middle ground because of your relentless, ideological war on Christianity and the natural law on which the founders of this country based our system of laws.
Valerie| 6.28.11 @ 2:37PM
Wow. Do you even know any gay people? Clearly, the answer to that is no.
Okay, okay, maybe you know one crazy, self-hating gay person.
I know dozens, and not a single one of them is out to destroy the church's right to marry whoever it wants. In fact many of them wish to get married in a church, and there are plenty of (Christian and otherwise) churches that will do it.
Also, does the Spectator only delete "grossly impolite" posts that run counter to its underlying philosophy? Because I would say calling someone an "insufferable, delusional, condescending idiot" is, well, grossly impolite.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 2:43PM
Then you'll see TomMullen's comments above and agree that he's nothing if not grossly impolite, right?
Why precisely do homosexual couples wish to get married in a church?
The answer to that will crystallize things nicely.
TomMullen| 6.28.11 @ 4:23PM
Impolite? Try in your face with exposing your effin hideous nonsense. F the Church, it has been a racket for decades and for $$$. And by the way, I am speaking of the evangelicals and Catholics. The Episcopolians want nothing of the hate-mongering of the heirarchical Cathoilcs. And if you try to be funny, be funny, NOT stupid.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 6:03PM
You really are a caricature, Tom.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 5:45PM
I suppose some do wish to marry in a church but there are many churches who will perform the ceremony. But, if it is to be legally recognized, one needs that piece of paper from the State. Without that, the church ceremony is just symbolic.
Personally, I never have had any desire to wear a white gown anywhere. Some might, I suppose.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 6:04PM
And why do they wish to do so?
Red| 6.29.11 @ 4:01PM
Why would you?
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 5:42PM
Clearly not a gentleman.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 6:04PM
You do see TomMullen's posts, don't you?
tonynoboloney| 6.28.11 @ 1:55PM
Wow! Good stuff ALL. Thank you for the reasoned arguments, much food for thought.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 6:12PM
Since it's been brought up by the anti-Catholics, it would be prudent to state the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality. From the Catechism:
"Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
III. THE LOVE OF HUSBAND AND WIFE
2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.
2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143
Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, "Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety." So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.' I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together." And they both said, "Amen, Amen." Then they went to sleep for the night.144
2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146
2363 The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity. "
Thus the Church does not discriminate against our brothers and sisters who have homosexual orientations. They are viewed in fact as uniquely suffering for the call to chastity their orientation requires. It is their Cross just as each of us has his own.
This is why Oscar Wilde was accepted into the Catholic Church but not the Anglican.
The hatred that so many feel for the Church is borne of the same common root---the love for the particular sin which enslaves each anti-Catholic. Homosexuals are not special in this regard---it is merely another sin of lust; there is no sin more common today such that 70% of confessions heard involve it.
ChuckGG| 6.28.11 @ 7:05PM
Teflon93 - Interesting. Again, their viewpoint and they are entitled to it. You see, many people seem to think that this hits my radar screen. It does not.
I truly do not care what the Catholics (or any other religion) happens to believe. They can dance around a fire all night for all I care and as long as they are not using parts of my house for their bonfire, what they do is up to them. They do have to understand they need to leave non-Catholics alone.
I read this and it all is based upon assumptions and preconceived ideas that I do not believe in any more than I believe the ramblings in the Koran. You, undoubtedly, believe it, but for me to hear it, I'd have to believe in the basic tenets of all of it and I do not.
So, thanks sending it along. Apparently, many priests have not read it or followed its doctrine. I guess what stuns me is the naivete of the laity. They were shocked when the priest scandal broke? What planet were they on?
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 8:04PM
Nope, not at all. I posted it because somebody made a false claim above about what the Catholic Church teaches. Catholics don't believe that to read it is to believe it---that's the other guys.
It is certainly true that many priests do not follow the teachings of the Church---it's been the source of innumerable scandals from the moment Christ founded the Church. But this is true of the laity too---to a much larger degree by almost any measure.
The vast majority of the sexual abuse occurred in the 70s, peaking in the early 70s (73 if I recall correctly). Back then the bishops bought into the notion that psychiatrists could fix sexual abusers through counseling. They weren't on a different planet but on our own---unfortunately if you go back and watch old "Phil Donahue" and "Oprah Winfrey" shows you'll see how pervasive this notion was well into the 80s.
This combined with an unwillingness to believe a brother priest or bishop could do such a thing combined with the willingness of some bishops to sweep it all under the rug and hope it never came to light is what caused the scandal. To the extent the laity was shocked----I doubt conservatives who'd been watching the decline of the seminaries for example were very shocked, having inveighed against this----the sheer magnitude of the cases and the complicity of some bishops in the cover up was very disheartening. A good book on the subject is "The Faithful Departed"---it's by an ex-Catholic and concerns what happened in the Archdiocese of Boston.
The Church being a hospital for sinners and not a hotel for saints, in Wilde's formulation, I don't suppose we're ever really that surprised. We're all sinners and it takes great novelty to invent one people have never heard of at this point.
The point is the Church distinguishes between orientation and behavior just as Christ did: "hate the sin, love the sinner". Since we all have sins this is a universal precept and so when people claim the Church teaches hatred of homosexuals it simply isn't factually true; she teaches the opposite. Indeed, hatred of anyone is a grave sin.
ChuckGG| 6.29.11 @ 11:26AM
Well stated. Of course, where I would disagree is on the definition of a sin. I do not consider homosexual acts "sinning." Your church does. In fact, your church defined it as a sin. Heck, it defined "sin," period.
Also, the "hate the sin, love the sinner" bit is condescending; almost "holier than thou." It is what I call "priest speak" which is close to passive-aggressive in nature.
As far as the scandal goes, you could not have asked for a worse public relations debacle. Americans can put up with a lot and are forgiving of much, especially if there is a plausible reason behind the action. For example, they can "understand" when a father steals a loaf of bread to feed his child. They know it is wrong but some leeway is given for this "sin."
What Americans have almost zero tolerance for is hypocrisy. When a Democrat pro-same-sex marriage politician, married, finally "comes out," people understand and will cut him some slack as the road of discovery that is life has many twists and turns. Had that politician voted against every gay issue going, and then been arrested soliciting sex from a 15 year old in a men's room, and then blames it all on his alcoholism, his career is as good as gone.
The RCC would have fared far better had the cover-up not occurred and had they finally done a real mea culpa. Instead, they blame everyone but themselves (the famous Woodstock defense). The hypocrisy of it all plus the lip service to the victims is what makes this, to me, the hands-down worst public relations debacle I ever have seen. And, continuing to drone on endlessly about the sin of homosexual acts and same-sex marriage while altar boys remain at risk is just too much.
I wish them luck to get their house in order but I am not optimistic. Perhaps, if they just stopped, shut up for awhile, and got things fixed, they'd be better off.
Richard Munro| 6.28.11 @ 8:00PM
This is a true and accurate representation of the (orthodox) Roman Catholic point of view. You are correct that to the church homosexuality or bestiality or adultery or sodomy or rape are merely aspects of the sin of uncontrolled lust.
The church recognizes the human desire for lust; it just advocates restraint, self-control and chastity.
Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 8:09PM
Good point, Richard---the Church doesn't single out homosexuality here; indeed, she condemns all lustful sins as they represent idolatry, adultery, and disobedience of Christ's commandments. We cannot love our neighbor as ourselves if we're using them.
Homosexuals aren't the only ones called to chastity, either---we all are, with the exception of those of us who are married. Even then we are called upon per Humanae Vitae to ensure every marital encounter is open to the prospect of life. This is probably the single most disobeyed teaching of the Church today, given the zeitgeist and people's belief that the Church should not interfere in such things.
The Church is quite demanding of everybody, in other words. The gate is narrow.
ChuckGG| 6.29.11 @ 11:35AM
Your comments reminded me of some factoid I had read - some very high percentage of American Catholics use birth control/contraceptives. I cannot recall, but it was well past 50% and I would guess 80%, maybe? A very large number.
Now, I am not Catholic ("No kidding," I hear.), but isn't birth control/contraception a "mortal sin?" And, aren't mortal sins unforgivable, especially if one continues to do them? There are few religions as complicated and with more rules than Catholicism.
So, if you have this unforgivable mortal sin hanging around your neck, why bother to worry about any other sins? It sounds like an axe murderer being concerned about a parking ticket.
Dub Turbo Free Trial | 6.28.11 @ 9:13PM
Dub Turbo Free Trial
HOT BEATMAKER SOFTWARE!
-Are you a great fan of beats-making of your own?
-Are you searching for a program which helps you to make your own beats easily?
Timothy | 7.20.11 @ 7:16PM
David Frum & The Failure of Conservatism
Why changing his mind on gay marriage isn't enough
http://moreperfect.org/site/?p=474