1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why Conservatives should be for Gay Marriage.

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by Emberstone, Jan 10, 2010.

  1. Emberstone

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,680
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
  2. Greggers

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,698
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    I read this on thestranger.com I think.

    Good argument. Too bad we already know that logic =/= the answer to getting through to gay marriage opponents. If we could get them to change their minds with logic this fight would have been over many years ago. All the logic is on our side, to be perfectly honest.
     
  3. mmilam75

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Phoenix, Arizona
    I posted a similiar article somewhere a while back where the President of the CATO Institute, a Libertarian Think Tank, made the argument for gay marriage being a Constitutional right that should be protected by the courts. This is far more significant, however, because George W. Bush's first solicitor general, the attorney who argues most often before the Supreme Court on behalf of whatever Administration is in the White House at the time, is now arguing for gay marriage. Far-right conservatives can never answer one question about gay marriage that dooms their whole argument: "If marriage is a fundamental civil right, as the Supreme Court has declared it to be in Loving v. Virginia, then how is refusing to expand that franchise to include GLBT people anything but a denial of Constitutional principles?"

    I've asked that question many times in the non-internet world, and all I get are emotional responses that have little bearing on the actual issue itself. This reflects a changing dynamic that bodes well for the future. Now, if only this had happened in, say, October, Maine and New York might not have gone against us :bang::eusa_doh::tantrum:
     
    #3 mmilam75, Jan 10, 2010
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2010
  4. Sicsemper79

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2009
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Roanoke VA
    Well as a libertarian myself, who could be considered pretty conservative, depending on the subject; I have never been able to decipher how a "small government conservative" could ever be for the federal regulation of marriage.

    In the libertarian movement, as well as the small government Republican movement, the rights of the individual are paramount. The 10th amendment to our constitution is recognized as are all the amendments.

    The problem is that under Bush, the Republican party lost all connection to any idea of limited government or individual liberty. It got hijacked... or sold, depending on how you look at it, to the Christian Right among others. Karl Rove managed to make Jesus a Republican and they decided that gays were all liberal anyway and they could scape-goat us. They created this idea that we were out to wreck society and the churches started preaching it to congregations desperate for something to hate. It is as obvious as it is sad.

    The problem is that the individuals we try to debate with refuse to see the facts. I have normally good and open minded people (like my father) tell me how gays are all promiscuous and on drugs. I hear about the "lifestyle" and they say that we are all atheists and depressed.

    If only these people could meet some more of us. If they could go out for drinks with us and see just how normal and boring the vast majority of us are, they would never want to hurt us. But the churches and the right wing will never let that happen. They will radicalize their side and we will radicalize ours in response. The rhetoric will continue to get more hateful and we will continue to lose battles...

    But that's just in the short term. Thankfully the vast majority of people under the age of 30, even outside the big cities, are becoming more and more gay friendly. We have already won the war. The total inclusion of gays and lesbians in our society is a done deal. It will happen as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. Unfortunately we will still lose a few battles in the mean time. God I hope people wise up soon though. With every day that passes with this hateful rhetoric being preached from the soap box and the pulpit, more kids die, more lives are ruined, more people live in fear and shame. And that really sucks.
     
    #4 Sicsemper79, Jan 10, 2010
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2010
  5. mmilam75

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Phoenix, Arizona
    It is absolutely true that a traditional conservative should actually be among the fiercest defenders of gay marriage, because extending the marriage contract to as many people as possible guarantees that no one person will have a special right or privilege not enjoyed by everyone else. Giving one person a greater share of freedom and liberty in this country is exactly why the Founding Fathers demanded that the Tenth Amendment be included in the Bill of Rights, in order to guarantee that the rights of the states would be protected against what Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and others said would be an out of control federal government.

    The only point JC makes that I would take issue with is the idea that the trend towards selling out small government Republican philosophy to big government conservatives began with George W. Bush. It actually started much earlier than that, when Ronald Reagan listened to the wing of the party that was controlled by Lee Atwater in the lead up to the 1980 Presidential election. In 1978, when Proposition 6 was on the ballot in California, former Governor Reagan actually opposed that proposition on libertarian grounds, and he did so before President Jimmy Carter. Governor Reagan argued that the argument of Prop. 6 being necessary to protect children was false because there were already enough laws on the books to protect citizens and that the proposition was an unconstitutional breach by the government of California into the private lives of California citizens. Only after he started running for the Republican nomination in 1980 did Reagan listen to Lee Atwater and others, the political godfathers of Karl Rove and Co., who argued for selling the soul of the Republican Party to Christian conservatives.

    Here's one of my favorite quotes by Barry Goldwater, who really gave intellectual libertarian conservatives their state in national American politics:

    This is a development which has occurred over the last twenty years, but what we are seeing now is something that should be encouraging to all of us, as well known conservative thinkers are starting to come out of a closet of their own and make a reasoned case for why conservatives, and Republicans in general, should actually be for gay marriage. We didn't get to this point overnight, and we're not going to see radical right wing politicians or churches change overnight, but I absolutely believe it will happen. More and more mainline protestant churches are opening their doors to GLBTQ people, and that is causing them to get to know us. As they get to know us, they see that what they've been taught about us is flat-out wrong, and that process will make them question the assumptions on which their long-standing ignorance is based. It's not going to happen overnight, but it absolutely will happen, and that thought is what should keep each and every one of us getting out of bed and doing our thing each and every day - that, and the thought of how much annoyance our out of the closet existence brings to the likes of Jerry Falwell Jr. and Fred Phelps every day of their lives :slight_smile:
     
  6. Sicsemper79

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2009
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Roanoke VA
    I agree with Marcus whole-heartedly on all his points. You are absolutely correct about the time frame regarding the Christian Right and the Republican party. I probably should have included the 20 or 25 year run up to what we saw with Bush. However Bush was our first self identified born again Christian president in modern history. While Reagan certainly answered to the fringe of the Christian Right to an extent, Bush is the one who had weekly phone calls with the likes of Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, and my personal favorite Mr. Teddy Haggard.

    Reagan was a devout Christian, however he always went out of his way to make it known that God was not running his administration. His political outlook and the constitution were what he turned to in matters of the state. Bush, on the other hand, claimed to pray for guidance on matters of state, something that the liberals used to love to bash him for.

    I would actually compare the Reagan outlook on gays to the Obama/Clinton outlook. I think both are pragmatic and reasonably friendly, however they are not going to stick their neck out because they also reported to very socially conservative groups (in Clinton / Obama's case it is the Back Caucus and their churches). Bush was completely beholden to the people he saw as his personal saviors, the southern new age Baptist churches. That is terrifying to a big ol 'mo like me.

    The seeds of this right wing movement were planted in the vitriolic and hateful rhetoric of Anita Bryant and Jerry Falwell of the late 1970's and early 80's. They continued through the early AIDS era. However, I am not aware of a time when they have ever been more politically connected and therefore dangerous than the 8 years of the Bush administration. My only hope is that the new Republican party will understand that it was this religious fervor and the hypocrisy always hiding underneath, that sank it. If they plan on returning to power, returning to the ideas of small government, fiscal responsibility, and individual liberty will be the only way to make it last.
     
  7. Emberstone

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,680
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    I have always prefered the libritarian style republicans moreso than the current style for the party. I think the worst thing that happened to the political scene is exactly what goldwater was talking about.

    How can you argue with a religious person who will always improperly end their argument with "god is on my side". If these people would read their bibles without bias and ignorance, they would learn quick god most certainly is not on their sides.

    The founding fathers wanted religion to stay out of politics. They knew the dangers, because the blood of religious dictatorship is splashed upon the pages of history.

    I am a christian, but I am not blind to what the mindless drones of religious fringes and extremists have done in the name of god.
     
  8. mmilam75

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Phoenix, Arizona
    I've said this for a long time, that even if Republicans don't agree with us on gay marriage specifically and gay rights in general on moral or philosophical grounds, they should agree with us on practical grounds. Take a look at the following maps for an example of what I'm talking about:

    1972

    [​IMG]

    1984

    [​IMG]

    2004

    [​IMG]

    Which one of these doesn't look like the others? If you look at the specific polling data from areas surrounding the big cities (NY, Chicago, LA, Detroit, DC, San Francisco, Houston, Dallas, Miami, etc.), you see people who were increasingly uncomfortable with the direction of the party, because they were handing more and more control over the mechanisms of power to people whose agenda more folks were uncomfortable with. And it wasn't just meeting with them....during my final days of being in the closet, I was in meetings where they boasted that they could walk around the White House when Bush was in power. I think the logical and philosophical arguments our side makes are better, but Republicans don't even have to agree with us on the merits...the consequences should be so mind numbingly frightening to them that they start taking power back from the right wing power brokers and really start doing what they claim to stand for, maximimizing individual freedom and liberty. They do that, and every bit of political experience I have tells me you'd see a Republican Congress elected overnight...and the good news is the prospect of that wouldn't be so immensely frightening to us as GLBT people.

    ----------

    Just to clarify, a point I was trying to make above. The point I was making is that, in 1972 and 1984, civil rights was, for the most part, a settled issue and Republican Presidents were essentially coming down on the side of expanded civil rights. In 2008, however, we had a President who came down on the side of limiting civil rights and giving more power to those who agreed that less civil rights were a good and desirable goal. Libertarian thought would argue exactly the opposite, that good policy is one that will offer laws that provide a maximization of liberty. The point I was making above was that, by taking that stand, even if they don't agree with us philosophically, although I think they should, taking that stand is to their electoral benefit, as well as to the benefit of our entire Constitutional system (in the United States specifically).

    Just wanted to clarify :slight_smile:
     
  9. kettleoffish

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Messages:
    891
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scotland
    It makes sense really. One of conservatism's core principals is of small government that doesn't interfere in people's lives or business affairs. This seems to have been forgotten, along with seperation of church and state, by modern Republican Americans. Surely, banning one group of people from marrying is interfering with their lives unnecessarily?
     
  10. Holmes

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Ireland
  11. Swamp56

    Swamp56 Guest

    People seem to forget that it's not just conservatives that are against gay marriage. I have staunch liberal democrat family members that are anti-gay-marriage.

    Also, "conservative" by no means defines someone as a "republican". There are a lot of misconceptions with that. The word "conservative" is used in a pejorative sense, when people are really meaning to mention the republican party. That party comes with a platform that has moral grounds, whereas there is no single party that a "conservative" follows, seeing as there are conservatives in all parties.
     
    #11 Swamp56, Jan 11, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 11, 2010
  12. malachite

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,769
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Orlando
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    ah, how that pesky hatred can blind you to what is really going on in the world.
     
  13. Sicsemper79

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2009
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Roanoke VA
    Good points all, and the CATO institute, while I don't agree with them on everything, has a long standing record of fighting government intervention in the people's personal lives.

    One thing that I have not been able to find though is a legal / constitutional argument for the opposition of gay marriage. We have all heard (and probably do not care to hear again) the many "moral" or "common sense" arguments that are used by our very emotional opposition, but I am curious as to what the legal arguments are.

    I can see some grounds for the idea that a state should be able to define marriage as what it chooses, but the Full Faith and Credit clause seems to prevent states from not recognizing legal marriages performed in other states... Furthermore, virtually all other civil rights issues have been incorporated into the 14 amendment making it illegal for states not to grant equal protection to all Americans under the law.

    Does anyone have a reasoned legal argument that they can link or even just tell me about that shows some legal basis for their position? I mean what are the defendants in Perry V. Schwarzenegger going to argue... that gays make them feel icky? I really want to know... for the life of me I cannot find it anywhere!