The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Another Less Famous, But More Telling, Gay Marriage Conversion

By on 6.22.12 @ 2:07PM

Via Rod Dreher, I see that longtime marital traditionalist David Blankenhorn now supports same-sex marriage. Blankenhorn writes:

Marriage is the planet’s only institution whose core purpose is to unite the biological, social and legal components of parenthood into one lasting bond. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its children.

At the level of first principles, gay marriage effaces that gift. No same-sex couple, married or not, can ever under any circumstances combine biological, social and legal parenthood into one bond. For this and other reasons, gay marriage has become a significant contributor to marriage’s continuing deinstitutionalization, by which I mean marriage’s steady transformation in both law and custom from a structured institution with clear public purposes to the state’s licensing of private relationships that are privately defined.

I have written these things in my book and said them in my testimony, and I believe them today. I am not recanting any of it.

But there are more good things under heaven than these beliefs. For me, the most important is the equal dignity of homosexual love. I don’t believe that opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are the same, but I do believe, with growing numbers of Americans, that the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over. Whatever one’s definition of marriage, legally recognizing gay and lesbian couples and their children is a victory for basic fairness.

In my cover story in the July/August issue of The American Spectator, I come to the conclusion that this is the emerging consensus on this question: that the core purpose of marriage must lose out to the “equal dignity of homosexual love.” I disagree with this conclusion, but I am not without sympathy for the motivations behind it. Yet as I asked in the print magazine and in a recent column, what institution will do what traditional marriage once did if marriage is now simply “the state’s licensing of private relationships that are privately defined”?

Blankenhorn’s switch is all the more notable because he has focused on making the positive case for traditional marriage rather than attempting to re-stigmatize homosexuality. The fact that some social conservatives who understand the proper link between marriage and parenthood now accept that society has decided to sever that link is ultimately more important to this debate than President Barack Obama’s recent change in position.

View all comments (74) |

Derek Leaberry| 6.22.12 @ 2:59PM

Which would mean that conservatives have failed to conserve once again. Which would also lead me to believe that the nation should be allowed to sink like the Western Roman Empire. Let Barrack Obama be its Romulus Augustus. A nation that considers homosexuality honorable is not one that deserves to survive. A nation that allows homosexuals the dignity of marriage does not deserve to survive.

JP| 6.22.12 @ 3:51PM

We are in fact sinking to the level of paganism (at least in deed if not thought) of the Roman Empire. What we are witnessing is the destruction of the Christian Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. What the hetros begun, the gays will finish.

C. Vernon Crisler | 6.23.12 @ 4:20PM

I agree. This country deserves damnation. Remember that Jefferson feared what God would do to America because of the crime of slavery: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Lincoln acknowledged this, too:

"Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

We cannot continue down the path of moral degredation and not be brought short by the terrible swift sword of God's judgments, which are true and righteous altogether.

kingsmill| 6.22.12 @ 3:10PM

Natural law scuttled in order to get in line with academic elitist Blankenhorn. Absurd.

Derek Leaberry| 6.22.12 @ 3:20PM

Blankenhorn is about as well known as the backup shortstop of the Seattle Mariners.

Cromulent| 6.23.12 @ 12:58AM

I demand you retract your slur against Munenori Kawasaki.

TLP| 6.23.12 @ 7:52AM

Seattle has a Baseball Team?

Butch| 6.22.12 @ 3:29PM

I am not familiar with the work of Mr. Blankenhorn (have never heard of him, actually), but I do not agree with his assertion of "equal dignity."

Marriage is one of the oldest institutions known to humankind, and Mr. Blankenhorn's case in favor of it is eloquent. However, homosexuality was routinely classified as a psychological pathology--a mental illness--by the American Psychiatric Association until the early 70s. It was declassified as such by a popular vote. Thus homosexuality, and all its attendant activities--fisting, golden showers, golden enemas, gerbiling, and a host of other activities were declared "normal." Sorry, I don't buy it.

I had a gay male "couple" as neighbors for five years. Frankly, they were both unstable, and they both died of Aids last year within six months of each other, both in their 40s.

I have not read your article yet in the paper Spectator (I am a long time subscriber), but I like to think that my view--and those of the majority of voters everywhere it is on the ballot--is the majority view, and I hope it will prevail.

Marriage is in enough trouble as it is, without this sad characteriture debasing its value to zero.

Butch| 6.22.12 @ 3:33PM

caricature, I think. Sorry.

Kingofthenet| 6.23.12 @ 4:24PM

Butch you seem to know quite a bit about the lifestyle, a hobby for you?

Butch| 6.23.12 @ 6:00PM

The practices I mention are indefensible as anything other than mental disorder. You guys ought to come up with a different comeback than "you must be one yourself." That one is pretty shopworn.

JD| 6.22.12 @ 3:51PM

This society has no source for its morality, since its powers don't believe in any god. Thus it has decided that morality is whatever the majority wants it to be at the moment. Unless of course one disagrees with the majority, in which case one clamors for change until it wins the majority, then uses its majority as rationale for condemning all dissent.

The bottom line is that such a fluid, subjective definition of right and wrong invites corruption and abuse. We're seeing it in America.

Clarknt67| 6.22.12 @ 6:55PM

This is where the logic failure breaks down: "the proper link between marriage and parenthood now accept that society has decided to sever that link."

"Society" can't sever that link. Individual people choose to sever that link, whether they are severing their relationship to their co-parent, or their relationship with their own children.

No law can force people to raise their kids, or be a responsible, engaged parent, or a good husband or wife. Whether gay people can or can not wed has no effect on whether heterosexual people will assume responsibility for the offspring they bring into this world. Don't try to pawn off heterosexual parents making bad choices as somehow being the fault of the gays.

It's nonsense.

JPL17| 6.23.12 @ 7:38AM

I am curious as to why Blankenhorn thinks that society's visceral taboo against homosexual acts can simply be thrown out the window without consequence. This taboo has been part of the Western code for centuries, which is the code that resulted in Western liberal democracy, freedoms we take for granted, meritocracy, prevalence of reason over violence as a way to settle disputes, equality before the law, individualism, capitalism and prosperity. To think we can simply toss out part of that code without damaging the civilization it helped build is -- to me -- folly.

One has to ask: After 3 generations of boys growing up in the West feeling in their gut that homosexual acts are the "most natural thing in the world," what will society look like? While no one can predict exactly the unintended consequences that will flow from the West's eliminating the homosexual taboo, it's probably safe to say the unintended consequences will be highly destructive.

The counter-argument seems to be, "Why worry about destruction of Western civilization, which won't happen for at least several generations, when we can feel good about ourselves now?" Unfortunately, this is how civilizations implode.

TLP| 6.23.12 @ 7:56AM

In answer to you "Queery".

The West will look like New York's Gay Pride Padade, every day.

TLP| 6.23.12 @ 7:56AM

Parade.

Can we PLEASE get a Fcking EDIT BUTTON?

JPL17| 6.23.12 @ 10:54AM

The West will look like New York's Gay Pride Parade, every day.

And that's if we're lucky, TLP. The other possibility is the West will look like Hijab Pride Day, every day, once we give up our fight against Islamic fanaticism based on the same trendy (but perverse) post-modern concept of "tolerance."

Clarknt67| 6.23.12 @ 2:22PM

Why does New York only look like the gay pride parade one day a year then, 43 years after Stonewall?

A year after marriage equality passed it still looks disappointingly the same.

How long is the delayed affect of everyone wearing hot pants, thongs, leather chaps or dressing up in drag 24-7-365?

Will it kick in in the short term or the long term? Just a ballpark is good, so I can plan my wardrobe purchases, 5 years? 10 years? 20?

JPL17| 6.23.12 @ 8:21PM

How long until you say something coherent?

Just ballpark is good enough, so I can plan when to start paying attention to anything you might have to say.

Oldefarte| 6.24.12 @ 10:26PM

Especially if Barack moves the nation's capitol to San Francisco for political vote obtaining purposes before November!!!!!!!

gary47290| 6.29.12 @ 10:31AM

More likely the West will look like New Orleans Mardi Gras and a Houston Strip club ( http://online.wsj.com/article/.....TopStories ).

Garmin| 6.24.12 @ 11:07AM

We gave up the taboo on shellfish and pork and that hasn't harmed civilization. I don't see picketing of restaurants serving shrimp, oysters or ham. What did gay Brit Alan Turing do to harm Western liberal democracy? He broke the Nazi Enigma code. What did gay artists Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci do to harm Western liberal democracy? C'mon. Your argument is fatuous.

Teflon93 | 6.24.12 @ 8:46PM

1. People do die of shellfish allergies; that's not quite true.

2. Western civilization has roots in Athens and Rome as well as Jerusalem; shellfish and pork were not taboo in either of the former. Jewish dietary laws were confined to a small portion of Western civilization throughout its history.

3. Kim Philby did rather more to harm Western liberal democracy.

4. You'll need to provide some evidence---GLAAD won't do---for the homosexuality of Michelangelo and da Vinci; which if true by the way completely invalidates your claim for the "oppression of the Church".

5. Would you agree that Reinhard Heydrich's homosexuality is dispositive against your point?

Teflon93 | 6.23.12 @ 9:07AM

If homosexual relationships are a good thing under heaven, why do so many begin in childhood sexual abuse, require resort to narcotics to maintain, and end so quickly?

Garmin| 6.24.12 @ 11:11AM

Because of persecution from the religious right. The suicide rate of young gay Mormons is heart-breaking.

Teflon93 | 6.24.12 @ 8:15PM

Really? What is it? How do you know those suicides were driven by "persecution" and not, say, by having been sexually abused by homosexual predators, by being drug addicts, or both?

Data would be nice.

Teflon93 | 6.24.12 @ 8:37PM

While we wait, you might want to look at some of the literature about homosexuality and drug abuse. You didn't argue the point, which frankly few in the LGBT community would, having found it common, but here you go anyway:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2589133

Occam's Tool| 6.25.12 @ 2:06AM

Teflon: the rate of drug abuse and HIV is titanically higher among gay men: I believe the last I checked the rate of meth use was 22 times higher.

Occam's Tool| 6.25.12 @ 2:11AM

For example:

"AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2012 Jan;26(1):36-52. Epub 2011 Nov 9.

A systematic review of behavioral and treatment outcome studies among HIV-infected men who have sex with men who abuse crystal methamphetamine.

Rajasingham R, Mimiaga MJ, White JM, Pinkston MM, Baden RP, Mitty JA.

Source

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. radha.rajasingham@gmail.com

Occam's Tool| 6.25.12 @ 2:07AM

Your data's from 1989, there is more recent stuff, Teflon. I just reviewed it for CME, as a matter of fact.

Oldefarte| 6.24.12 @ 10:31PM

BS, it's due to internal guilt from their individual consciences, not from external persecutions [which is just an EXCUSE]!!!!!!

btims86| 6.23.12 @ 10:22AM

More non-stop, 24/7 coverage of homosexual "issues". Just like wall to wall coverage of so called "Hispanics" and their issues.

I've had just about enough of the news media, including the internet based sites like TAS, HotAir, Human Events, NRO, etc. Nothing but homosexual and "Hispanic" "news". Give me a break. Homosexuals are biological oddities and "Hispanics" (really illegal alien Mexicans) deserve to be deported. End of discussion.

ejp| 6.23.12 @ 11:39AM

This alas is a reminder of what happens when we see liberalism and the Democrats insist on lock-step solidarity on a social issue. Their side has no room for dissent or "tolerance" on the gay agenda and its destructive wrath on religious freedom in this country. The "conservative" side though easily allows itself to be worn down and splintered and as a consequence the efforts to stand up and hold the line on these assaults just erode and whither and before you know it "conservatives" are telling us to "Get with it" now. This has happened before when we saw every effort to get meaningful pro-life laws and amendments in the late 70s, at a time when many DEMOCRATS were still willing to vote pro-life go to naught. And in the late 90s, when the chance was there to close the door on the barn before the horse got out and get a Constitutional Amendment ratified to safeguard the institution of marriage, it was cold feet once again. Meanwhile, the cesspool that is modern liberalism with their Hollywood and media chums keeping up the drumbeat and hitting it over our heads day after day, keep up with the assault. This assault is the time for those who believe in these issues to double down and not cave in. And I have no respect for those who choose to do so and say "get with it" because this is the same old crap I've heard for decades from those in the "conservative" movement who have always felt ashamed about having social conservatives in their ranks.

btims86| 6.23.12 @ 12:44PM

Well put. As you and I have noticed, in recent months, so called "conservative" websites are very nearly daily putting up articles/columns saying we should accept homosexual "marriage" and we should not enforce immigration law (deportation).

Phony "conservatives". Just what do they want to "conserve"?

Kingofthenet| 6.23.12 @ 4:22PM

State Marriage SHOULD just be about legalizing relationships between ANY two people. Religious Marriage or HOLY MATRIMONY can be whatever extra-legal thing you want it to be, it's the same reason why even if you are married in church you still need a STATE marriage license to be legal for the government.

Rich D| 6.23.12 @ 9:34PM

Whenever someone says SHOULD, it means that he is assuming moral authority, by force if necessary, to assert his standards on others.

Oldefarte| 6.24.12 @ 10:34PM

Wrong! The Natural Law is the basis for Man's Law [ie Thou shalt not kill= laws against murder]. Man's Law is fallible since it does not always correctly follow the Natural Law!!!!!

Oldefarte| 6.23.12 @ 10:37PM

Homosexuality is IMMORAL and against the NATURAL LAW OF GOD. End of story, except that homosexuals will as such burn in hades for their immorality on their judgement day. That said, all humans are born/created with FREE WILL in that they can act within their lives as they so choose to [ignoring MAN'S LAWS of course]. If they choose homosexuality, so be it but they will still pay the consequences of their human acts [as we all will do so]. MARRIAGE per se is impossible for them as same is a Sacrament of God only and strictly involves a man and a woman.....not tow males, a man and a dog, a woman and a horse, a goat and a cat, a cockroach and a flea, etc!!!!!!!!!!!

Garmin| 6.24.12 @ 10:32AM

When you argue from the personal belief standpoint, your argument should be dismissed. Your personal belief in God could be right or wrong. What if you're wrong? You're willing to persecute people based on a belief? Religious liberty does not mean license to harm other people.

Oldefarte| 6.24.12 @ 10:41AM

More appropriately, WHAT IF I'M CORRECT? Are you and your then willing to TAKE THAT CHANCE AND TO THEN SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES AT DEATH?????????

Oldefarte| 6.24.12 @ 10:46AM

PS: It is not harmful to state one's opinion and beliefs. I nor anyone else that believes in theology, religion and morality impose same upon others/non-believers. It a matter of personal choice and non-believers can ignore [though the premise of FREE WILL] same and live their lives according their own bliefs. You attempt to slander those of us that are non-agnostics is false and improper. Do as you wish to do but don't slander the rest of us, okay?????

Fiscal| 6.24.12 @ 10:48AM

Whether I suffer any consequences at death is my choice, not yours. Capish?

Oldefarte| 6.24.12 @ 9:52PM

Did you not read or understand my statement regarding 'FREE WILL' above? Oh and stick your 'Capish' WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE!!!!!!

Garmin| 6.24.12 @ 11:23AM

Before I answer that, let me know if you think the world was created on Sunday October 23, 4004 BC?

Teflon93 | 6.24.12 @ 8:46PM

Is Barack Obama demanding you claim to believe such?

Oldefarte| 6.24.12 @ 9:58PM

Obviously you don't know much about the world's creation, otherwise you would not ask an absurd question such as that!!!!

Fiscal| 6.24.12 @ 7:52AM

I saw all of these same arguments about the equality of blacks and interracial marriage years ago. It's quite funny that when most of you talk about the "will of the people" when it agrees with your religious beliefs, but talk about "God's will" when it doesn't. This is the definition of bigotry.

First of all, marriage did not start as a sacrament. It started to define heirs as a public construct to pass estates. Secondly, not all religions think same sex marriage wrong. So whose God are we talking about?

Marriage was declining long before same sex marriage was even an issue. I doubt whether homosexuals have effected any of you personally. We need to get government out of our personal lives and make it much smaller -- not bigger. Big Brother lives here at TAS.

btims86| 6.24.12 @ 9:56AM

Black Americans were equal and had voting rights in most of the country, except for a few states in the South; they did not become "equal" because of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Furthermore, laws against interracial marriage were a reflection of cultural behaviors that had been in place for thousands of years, hardly anything new to the USA.

Secondly, you sound like a homosexual atheist, whining in a nasaly voice. ;-)

Teflon93 | 6.24.12 @ 10:07AM

Indeed, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments made this clear, as did blacks serving in high office during Reconstruction (this is what drove the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow laws). The legal waters were only muddied by the Supreme Court's formulation of "separate but equal", the former being the overwhelming priority and the latter clearly untrue.

None of which has anything to do with homosexuality, which is a compulsive behavior and not a race. Homosexuals can practice chastity or even become heterosexuals; blacks cannot refrain from being black.

Thus the civil rights analogy is complete and utter hogwash.

Fiscal| 6.24.12 @ 10:21AM

Again, your sexuality is, in part, promoted by genetics. So your analogy about homosexuality only being a behavior is just wrong.

Teflon93 | 6.24.12 @ 8:18PM

It's quite right.

Your attempt to fudge the line between genetic predisposition---which has yet to be proven in the case of homosexuality, thus the continued search for "the gay gene"---and personal behavior is what's wrong.

Even if such genetic predisposition exists, it would be no different than the disposition toward alcoholism and drug abuse---and no excuse for such behavior.

Oldefarte| 6.24.12 @ 10:19PM

No its strictly BEHAVIORIAL [by choice]. Individuals choose to become homosexuals, they are not born to be such. Hetersexuals incarcerated longterm within penal systems tend to turn to homosexuality by choice due to physical need and lakc of alterntive hetersexual availabilities, and if suddenly set free from prison would alternatively return to being hetersexual in behavior!!!!!!!

Fiscal| 6.24.12 @ 10:19AM

So, "coloreds" could use the same bathrooms as whites and didn't have to sit at the back of the bus. Sounds like you are a supporter of "separate but equal".

So laws against interracial marriage reflected cultural behaviors but preventing same sex marriage doesn't?

Sorry, not a homosexual but believe strongly in individual liberty and abhor anyone trying to force their religious beliefs on me. And please, letting OTHERS of the same sex marry does not force YOU to do so.

Oldefarte| 6.24.12 @ 10:40PM

Anyone is capable of exercising their FREE WILL granted at birth to become homosexual, but also their consciences inform them that same is immoral and wrong. They are free to choose but will suffer the consequences of their freely chosen activity at their death!!!!!!!!

Fiscal| 6.24.12 @ 10:36AM

One more comment... Having been on the receiving end of religious persecution by other religious sects, I am especially sensitive to anyone trying to force their religious dogma on me. So while same sex marriage is not something I consider important, I will always fight on the side of personal liberty and keeping government institutions out of my personal life.

Oldefarte| 6.24.12 @ 10:42PM

Individuals are free to choose homosexuality, but are not so to demand that their immoral union be granted the status of MARRIAGE!!!

Teflon93 | 6.24.12 @ 10:02AM

You'll need to tell us precisely when and where homosexuals were enslaved. You'll also need to provide links to support your case that "these same arguments" were made regarding interracial marriage, as some of us believe you're simply making that up.

Marriage started as a sacrament; it predated Christianity but always had a religious component to it. Indeed, it predated the notion of estates, which you'd realize if you'd edit before posting.

There being only one God, we are talking about Him.

Homosexual marriage is a fad that wasn't even on the radar screen 5 years ago and isn't even desired by a majority of homosexuals. The Ruling Class is pushing it---that's who Big Brother is.

We're telling Big Brother to go pound sand. Marriage isn't theirs to define.

Fiscal| 6.24.12 @ 10:31AM

Only one God? Perhaps you'd like to talk to Buddhists and Hindus about that. Perhaps you meant only one Holy text? Would that be the Koran?

As far as marriage always having a religious component, perhaps you should read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

Marriage, as an institution, has been failing in this country long before same sex unions were being pushed. To believe the argument that if your homosexual neighbor was married to someone of the same sex that would affect your marriage is pure, and unadulterated hogwash.

Teflon93 | 6.24.12 @ 8:25PM

You really do have a problem understanding simple things, do you not?

There is only one God---Buddhists typically acknowledge no gods (most being atheists, although this isn't a requirement) whereas Hindus are polytheistic. It should be apparent both cannot be correct, so introducing mutually-contradictory allies in your failing argument invalidates it.

You'll need a better source than Wikipedia. Perhaps you would care to consult the classical sources---the Greek, Roman, and Jewish views of marriage would be a good place to start, they being the basis for our civilization.

And before you ignorantly claim that the Greeks and Romans were known to indulge in buggery, you'll do well to note a) they didn't tolerate lesbianism, b) they viewed it as inferior to marriage and never allowed gay marriage, c) they viewed lifelong homosexuality as corrupt and unmanly.

Start with Cicero's Philippics against Marc Anthony, who was offended enough by the implication of his homosexuality that he had Cicero murdered.

As for the deleterious impact upon marriage by forcing myself and others to celebrate as marriage something which manifestly is not, you might want to note the religious liberty clause of the Constitution, as well as the First Amendment right every American enjoys not to spout your politically correct claptrap.

Somehow, I suspect you're completely unfamiliar with all of the above.

Perhaps Wikipedia can tell you more.

Oldefarte| 6.24.12 @ 10:48PM

Most all major religions believe in a g-d or Supreme Being. Whatever one terms same is irrelevant. A homosexual cannot 'affect' you, your marriage or any other human...only you can 'affect' yourself; and no one that is sane would believe otherwise!!!!

Oldefarte| 6.24.12 @ 10:10PM

Blacks will reach 'equality' status when they stop sniffing and star learning. Everyone is equal at birth, but become unequal due to stupidity within life. Bigotry is overcome by progressing from stupidity to intelligent. All major religions do think homosexuality wrong or immoral, but also that humans with FREE WILL make immoral individual choices [since no one is perfect]. True marriage is declining, but that is because humans are not acting morally and following God's will [and in consideration of the immorality of homosexuality, TWO WRONG DON'T MAKE A RIGHT]!!!!

John Farmer| 6.24.12 @ 10:19AM

If marriage is biological, social and legal, there are many straight married couples who can't have children or don't want them. So they must not be married, right? Marriage is social and legal and anyone who wants to commit in a social and legal framework should be able to get married.

Fiscal| 6.24.12 @ 10:38AM

I wish these extreme right blowhards would stay out of our personal lives and let us pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The issue facing our country is economic and that's where we should be having political arguments.

Teflon93 | 6.24.12 @ 8:25PM

Pursue buggery to your heart's content.

Quit demanding we celebrate it.

Oldefarte| 6.24.12 @ 10:49PM

Or legalize it, since that is an impossibility!!!!

Oldefarte| 6.24.12 @ 10:14PM

No it's a question of morality [NATURAL LAW], not legality[MAN'S LAW]. A childless HETEROSEXUAL couple are married morally, spiritually and legally !!!!!!!

Garmin| 6.24.12 @ 12:15PM

The irony is that whereas the right doesn't support gay marriage, you are more likely, imo, to pursue happiness with the principles of the libertarian Republican Tea Party. Namely, limited government, fiscal sanity and the freedom to be left alone. Leftist Obama supports gay marriage but is mind-boggingly incompetent on the issues of limited government, fiscal responsibility, job creation and freedom from government intrusion.

I agree. At this time, the economic issue is the more important one. You have to be able to put food on the table.

Kingofthenet| 6.24.12 @ 3:28PM

It 'might' not be YOUR table if your partner dies and his sister takes it from you. True, this isn't that important for straight people, but I'd imagine it's VERY important to the Homosexual couples.

Fiscal| 6.24.12 @ 4:50PM

The Tea Party is decidedly NOT libertarian. Polling has proven they are white and social conservatives. They also don't want their Social Security and Medicare touched but also don't want to pay for those benefits. If they were for true fiscal sanity and smaller government (which means cutting entitlements and defense as well), I'd be in their front lines. I totally agree with your statement about Obama, but those on the right really don't want smaller government either because they won't cut entitlements or defense, nor do they want people to actually pay for what they've already received. Just look at Romney's projected deficits -- they're greater than Obama's.

Let's face it, there are no adults in D.C.

Teflon93 | 6.24.12 @ 8:27PM

You really do need to take a course in argmentation.

Start by showing us where white social conservatives are excluded from libertarianism.

But then I'll be throwing Buckley at you.

Oldefarte| 6.24.12 @ 10:56PM

'...They also don't want their Social Security and Medicare touched but also don't want to pay for those benefits...' is FALSE. SS/Medicare recipients have PAID FOR their benefits through their lifetime payroll/income deductions. If not forced by the government to enroll in this socialistic scheme, alternative investments would have provided far greater benefits at retirement. You ignorantly confuse same with ''''''MEDICAID'''''' and other governmental WELFARE programs whose recipients DO NOT PAY FOR THEIR BENEFITS. Learn the difference and then tell the truth!!!!!

Vance P. Frickey| 6.24.12 @ 10:07PM

In his book Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis was concerned that in postwar England, when fewer than half the populace was formally Christian, people were entering into marriages they intended to be neither permanent, inviolable, or sacramental.

The answer for C.S. Lewis was for there to be:
- a civil marriage in which the legal rights of the participants were protected, and beyond that,
- a religious marriage for couples who intended to love, honor and obey each other, forsaking all others, till death do they part.

This scheme gives the churches total control over the sort of marriage they are interested in, while providing a marriage that is not concerned with morality but with respect for the parties' legal rights and responsibilities. It could, I submit, could be opened to same-sex relationships with no problems.

Conservatism has to rediscover its roots in libertarianism, the protection of the individual from excessive interference by the State. We aren't all religious. Religious freedom implies freedom FROM religion if someone so desires.

We have to recognize the other person's right not deal with God as we do. The Founding Fathers knew how the State had been misused to impose religion on the unwilling. The English Civil War hadn't been that long ago for them. Its roots were deeply religious (or at least sectarian).

Occam's Tool| 6.25.12 @ 2:05AM

This will not end well. We need to be supporting the traditional family, not tearing it down further. I'm a Conservative, NOT a Libertarian.

More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/06/22/another-less-famous-but-more-t

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real

Quin Hillyer | 4:15PM

Good New Book: ‘Precipice’

Quin Hillyer | 3:07PM

The Spectator’s Spectacular: Most Read Stories, May 12-May 19

Patrick Ryan | 12:41PM

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|111 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|124 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|61 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|113 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|4 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|69 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|17 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman | 5.17.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley | 5.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT

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

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

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.