Skip to comments.Gingrich: GOP Must ‘Accommodate and Deal With Reality’ on Same-sex Marriage
Posted on 12/22/2012 5:12:06 AM PST by Olog-hai
Former GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich reportedly said Thursday that conservatives and the Republican Party need to accommodate and deal with (the) reality of a big wave of change sweeping Americaand that gay relationships will be legal, period in a number of states by 2014.
In an interview published Thursday by the liberal Web site, The Huffington Post, Gingrich reportedly said that both he and the Republican Party could accept a distinction between a marriage in a church from a legal document issued by the state, with the latter being acceptable, according to the Web site.
The publication indicated that Gingrich continued to profess a belief that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, but that he thinks Republicans could no longer close their eyes to the course of public opinion.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
How about making the distinction between a marriage in a church and a gay marriage in a church. This guy needs to go away. He always has a reason to act liberal.
Gay relationships have been legal in practice for quite some time. What I want is to keep gay marriages from being recognized by the state as legitimate, legally binding, ad equal to true marriage. No good comes of a lie, and we cannot lie to homosexuals and tell them their unions are good and equal to real marriage.
Auguries are back ~
With all due respect to you and the Speaker, I think you are both wrong. Government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. Why does anyone need a government stamp of approval to “recognize” what is suppose to be a joining of two people before God.
Most religious “conservatives” don’t want to hear that but as long as government is seen as the ultimate authority this is what you get.
A fathead who has been married three times (cheated on his two previous wives with the next spouse) should not be commenting on marriage.
“Why does anyone need a government stamp of approval to recognize what is suppose to be a joining of two people before God.”
Because in a civil society, you need some form of arbitration to settle custody and property rights, and that has fallen to government and the court system.
Folks: The state has no legitimate interest in your relationship as consenting adults. The state's interest in marriage is all about your kids. Period.
Want your relationship blessed by someone? Talk to your church. And keep in mind that the 1st Amendment prohibits the state from dictating what your church should believe.
In a rational world gays desiring such might well find their relationship "blessed" by some religious organizations (Unitarians?) but the state would be silent on such matters. But then, we no longer live in a rational world.
Start pushing for mandatory joint tax filing, thus higher joint income and higher tax rates for same sex marriage - the same as traditional marriage. Include in this partners who have lived together for more than 3 years - irrespective of marriage (including the Hollywood crowd who live together and don’t get married), and nail them with the same tax burden that the rest of us have. It’s only ‘fair’.
For generations, we have given the State the power to create artificial persons, in the form of corporations, foundations, trusts and the like. Nobody is confused by this government-defined fiction. We know that a corporation is not a real human person. Where the left has a problem is where the Supreme Court has ruled, in Citizens United, that such “persons” have the right of free speech.
Another government-defined fiction that we have allowed for generations is that the State can also define “marriage” and who is “married” and who is not. But marriage predates any State because it is God who defines and defends marriage, not the State. Indeed, any “marriage” a State defines is just as much as legal fiction as when it tells us that a corporation is a “person” that has freedom of speech.
The State attempts to force us to recognize its power. One way is to presume the power to define who is married and who is not. We cede this power in part because we allow the State to tax incomes and estates. To administer such taxing power, the State must define who it considers to be “married” and who is not. Just as when it defines a corporation to be a “person”, as silly as this would be to God, the State does not hesitate to define anyone it pleases as being “married”, totally apart from how God would define them.
Jesus, who was recognized as a prophet by all three monotheistic religions, is quoted in Matthew chapter 19 that from the beginning of humanity, it was God’s intent that marriage would only be one man and one woman. Scripture in many ways and places also tells us that God defines sexual morality and that people who refuse to practice that His morality simply do not qualify for His freely given gift of eternal life. (for example, see Ephesians chapter 5). Of course, people are free to believe whatever they want, but that does not change what God clearly said to us.
If you review the arguments advanced by supporters of same-sex marriage (like at HRC.ORG), you will find that many of them are related to taxation, inheritance and medical issues. But existing law addresses those and any defects in the law can be easily repaired apart from the issue of “marriage”.
I dont want a government that can tell me what I may or may not do in the privacy of my own home or relationships. In a secular Constitutional Republic with a provision that prohibits Congress from making any law respecting religion, I have to allow others to have their own beliefs and morality. I can only be an advocate for the morality and beliefs that I think are true. I take my understanding of sexual morality from Scripture and that is where I learn that God considers sodomy to be an abomination to Him.
If a State decides that two (or more) people can marry, if that is all that happened, I could live with that because I don’t have to approve, change my beliefs or what beliefs I pass on to my children.
However, once gays and their supporters have sufficient influence with a State to redefine marriage, they dont stop there. They use the State to forbid me from acting on my morality and beliefs. In fact, the State in some cases forces me to accommodation in their practices.
If I have children in public school, the State will insist on teaching them that gay marriage is just as normal as the God’s marriage. You will be sanctioned as a parent if you attempt to remove your child from such indoctrination.
If you run a business that could provide services to the public, you will be sanctioned if you decline to treat gays as non-gays. For example, if you run a wedding photography business, you will be sanctioned if you decline to photograph a gay wedding. This has already happened in California and New Mexico .
You may lose control of your own property. 
In short, gays will demand that non-gays accept them as moral equals, which they are not and cannot be. When the State says they are equal it is forbidden for a private citizen to dissent from that status. In doing so, they seek to force me to give them approval for something that I will never approve of. It is that last point that galls gays the most.
Curiously, when advocates of gay marriage are asked if their policy also would allow polygamy or polyandry, they recoil in horror and insist that it does not. However, logic demands that it does. I would ask how same-sex parents are going to react in the future when, for example, Utah public schools officials require that teachers instruct the children that LDS-related polygamy is just as “normal” as same-sex “marriage”. The fact that this will be an issue will show yet again that gay “marriage” is not about marriage at all it is about forcing the rest of us to approve of repugnant sexual immorality, something that LDS polygamists never demanded.
 Refusing To Shoot Gay Marriage Is Discrimination, Says New Mexico Appeals Court
 Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises
There is a difference between recognizing that we seem to be losing the fight, and giving up the fight because it is politically unpopular.
Gingrich is saying that we should adopt policies because they are politically popular. By that argument, if people all support abortion, we should support it, and if people all want to raise taxes on business, we should support it, and if they want to ban handguns, we should support it.
I am quite willing to recognize that in a democracy, we are at the whim of the majority for many things. But I refuse to accept the popular thing simply because it is popular.
Well said. Post of the day.
It’s called “Holy Matrimony” Mr Catholic Newt.
Why does anyone need a government stamp of approval to recognize what is suppose to be a joining of two people before God.But what is marriage in the eyes of the law? If you take the religious overtones out and squint your eyes a bit, what you have is a corporation of two people plus offspring, with the corporate purpose of raising said offspring into spinoffs. The basic Articles of Incorporation are boilerplate, so much so that they don't need to be written down, but referenced on a single piece of paper, referred to as the "marriage license." That piece of paper also brings into play a *ton* of statute law and court opinions, so much law in fact that "family law" is a recognized specialty for lawyers.
Because in a civil society, you need some form of arbitration to settle custody and property rights, and that has fallen to government and the court system.
(Beyond the scope of this particular discussion, but germain to my point, is the whole subject of "palimony". Where does that fit in? With current law, it doesn't, really. But now we have precedents for payouts from such personal unions. Go figure.)
The biggest problem of them all is that the tax code is riddled with recognition of only one particular form of incorporation for the purpose of raising children, to the exclusion of all other forms. Also, it does not recognized that "family" can extend to the support of people not related to the taxpayer, but does a service to the State by keeping such people off the welfare rolls. The Census recognizes such people and counts them for voting purposes, but not the tax authorities for support costs. Such people can cost more than a child...
For example: ever tried to claim the deadbeat living with you because s/he has no job, no home, damn few other friends, and no desire to "conform" but who is not your child? (Even though, for all practical purposes, is a child and wouldn't last long on his or her own?) You provide all support, including medical care, and you don't get a dime from the government; contrast that with the unmarried welfare queen who popped out a new kid every few years just to get the additional money from the government -- from us -- to feed a drug or drinking habit.
Some charity gets rewarded, some punished. Thank you, Mama Government.
The law is a patchwork of quick fixes. That's why we have so much bad law right now -- someone said "we ought to do something" and what was done applied then but doesn't wear well as things change. Plus, the smart people at MIT love to game the systems, which is part of the reason we all have such thin paychecks and thick tax bills.
Which gets back to the question about a government stamp: the whole body of marriage law is a fester on jurisprudence, three hundred years of a mish-mash of hastily-cobbled statues plus ham-handed legal decisions that stare decisis propagates. The right thing to do is re-think the legal ramifications of marriage. Leave the religious aspects to the religions. Where they belong.
(Like that will ever happen.)
The only ‘reality’ I know is you are a POS Gingrich. How could we possibly exist without all you wonderful pundits telling how to think and act.
The GOP is different from the Left how?
Gingrich needs to be drummed out of the GOP, and I hope the Pope excommunicates him. I’m sorry I ever thought about voting for him.
Another secularist afraid to fight the social issues. This is why he is not a serious candidate.
Pray for America
Sorry Newt, I do not accommodate perverts.
Newt is dead to me. This is the kind of stupid acquiesce to liberalism that is destroying this culture. First gay unions are not and never been at least not in recent history been illegal. That is just a lie even though it is fully within the power of government to make them illegal as they do with polygamus and other relationships however the government not licensing gay marriage does not make it illegal. The pernicious core of the argument of “marraige equality” is an attack on reason and at its heart is the same path to big govt and bad logic that is driving this nation into the path of sure oblivion.
A gay relationship is not the same as a heterosexual one. The equality argument is one that has at its core the committment to a fictional androgenous society and a moral equivalence society where because some one feels some way that reality must be suspended for their sake. Endorsement of gay marriage by government does not stop there as we have seen in state after state. It then becomes the states purpose to promote it and to suppress any expression of negativity or noncompliance to gay propaganda. Catholic churches must adopt children to Homosexuals or stop adopting. Churches must hire gay employees or face fines. Parents must conceed to gay activism in schools or face imprisonment and the loss of their children. Students at colleges and professors already face an unbelievable level of discrimination if they dare publish or express sentiments not in line with the “marriage equality” fiction.
This is the brave new world of big PC government support of gay marriage will produce.
It doesn’t matter that homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle. It doesn’t matter that it is biologically inncorrect and is inherently damaging to the heritability of the human organism. It doesn’t matter that homosexual men in particular not only report a greater incidence of being abused as children but also have a greater incidence of being sexual abusers not just of children but of other adults than the heterosexual population. It doesn’t matter that most who experiment with homosexuality don’t ultimately choose to lead the homosexual lifestyle. Also it doesn’t matter that at the core of the homosexual lifestyle is an afront to common decency in their parades, their events of which there is an overt sexual obscenity and a tolerance for the extreme and even grooming and coercion into the lifestyle and a focus on young men.
What this is is an errosion of reason and some may think that just letting this go will be of no consequence but it most certainly will be just as the invitation of open homosexuality in the military we be. At the heart it is a turning over of the definition of family and the military to the left and they will move the needle further and further their way with new trumped up emotional distresses into the land of further politically correct irrationality to the point where they will excercise such an iron grip that you wont dare speak up to oppose them even when they move on to norm even more radical, irrational, and obscene ideas.
Newt has it wrong. He seems to believe we must throw in the towel and just let the left remake the definition of family, the definition of church, the definition of the military and that it will not further shift everything against our cause of individual liberty. A person who accepts the illogic of “marriage equality” will certainly have no problem accepting all the other tenants of the progressive left because they all have a foundation of trumping up fictional rights to transform society into one where the individual can not exist without government to tell them what they can earn, how they can live, and ultimately what is right to think. There is no room for neautrality. If you care about protecting liberty we can not surrender on “social issues” because it is the deconstruction of those social issues like the definition of family and correct behavior that is directly fueling the fiscal woes of this nation. The New Normal is a normal where no man or women can or even want to live independent of the Govt pryor which while it indulges the deviant and the broken and remakes society to serve them it will be the hard working traditional American that will suffer while being made to fit the bill.
Newt should know the reasons gays were proscribed by Moses, allegedly speaking for G*d, were as follows:
1. Gays can’t create children, and society depends on children for existence. This production of children is why society gives benefits to married heterosexual couples.
2. Gays are a source of diseases, spread widely and diligently by both gays and bisexuals, thus being a source of bacterial, viral and parasitic diseases to the non-gay majority.
3. Given the prevalent predisposition to sex with boys, and the resulting sexual confusions/issues/problems created by such “relationships”, a society depending on marriage to produce children who are well acculturated, must not conflate “gay” marriage” with a real, functional marriage between a man and a woman.
The problem is that there are legal issues related to marriage such as property rights etc. Biblically, God involved the government in adultery and divorce cases. Marriage from the beginning was a family and society thing. The church only inserted itself rather recently. Other than dealing with the moral aspects, the church should stay out of it.
So how does government decide who is entitled to government benefits like SS, Medicare, federal and state pension survivor benefits, etc.? Government needs a definition of marriage because it is imbedded in our laws, regulations, etc.
And why should it be limited to just two people? Or among family members? Or based on age? We have all kinds of laws affecting marriage. Should they also be eliminated?
Nonsense. Marriage pre-dates society and is the necessary first step for a family. It was the first human institution of all.
I’m thankful to see many people on FR coming to their senses. I seem to recall that, only a year ago, this site was pushing Newt Gingrich for President. There was a minority of us who warned against the Finger-In-The-Wind, opportunistic Newt and we were bashed and denigrated.
I am especially impressed by the point you so articulately expressed concerning the imposition of gay values by force of law upon society:
Endorsement of gay marriage by government does not stop there as we have seen in state after state. It then becomes the states purpose to promote it and to suppress any expression of negativity or noncompliance to gay propaganda. Catholic churches must adopt children to Homosexuals or stop adopting. Churches must hire gay employees or face fines. Parents must conceed to gay activism in schools or face imprisonment and the loss of their children. Students at colleges and professors already face an unbelievable level of discrimination if they dare publish or express sentiments not in line with the marriage equality fiction.
This is the brave new world of big PC government support of gay marriage will produce.
For some time now I have been posting a comment which makes reference to Pat Buchanan and his wonderful speech 1992 convention in which he described the cultural war in America. He decried the then much less powerful movement toward legalizing gay marriage. He was right then any is still right, having maintained the same position. But it is also right to say, as Newt Gingrich has said, that not only have we lost the issue (I agree with Newt Gingrich's pessimism, it will soon become a universal right), but we have lost the gay vote in the process. Somehow, we have been maneuvered into losing the African-American vote even though it cannot be said that the Republican Party is anymore guilty of racism than the Democrat party, and we have lost the Hispanic vote while we have also lost on the issue of immigration. One might look at feminism and argue that, although conservatism was successful in thwarting the equal rights amendment, its provisions have been enacted into law and we lost much of the women's vote.
Do we perceive a pattern here?
John F. Kennedy, whose father corruptly bought him an election to be president of the United States, once expressed the unvarnished reality: "first you gotta win." The reality is, we ain't winnin'. We are winning neither the issues nor the elections. I believe we are losing elections because we are losing the culture. I do not believe the way to win the culture is to try to enact blue laws into legislation. That strikes me as a sure way to lose the culture.
For example, if we insist that the state has the right and the moral duty to prohibit gay marriage, should we also, for very much same reasons, insist that the state reenact Sunday closing laws? Should we make it a crime to take the Eucharist if one is theologically unentitled to it? Do we want to deploy the power of the state to enforce our theological predilections? Before we rehearse the arguments, many of which accept, which say, in effect, the homosexual practices are an abomination against God and nature, we ought to ask ourselves, what about those communities in Michigan which can summon up enough Muslim votes to impose elements of sharia? Should we open the door to their theocracy?
I believe the we should refrain from imposing our morality on the culture where there is no clearly identifiable victim, of which more later.
We are in place now where the Supreme Court has moved left and litigated morality and advanced the deterioration of the culture where the left has not yet legislated. So it has now become a constitutionally protected act to bugger thy neighbor so long as it is done in private. This is what I call the old "do not frighten the horses test."
I published what follows in 2007 and repeat it here for your convenience:
Don't frighten the horses: What Larry Craig tells conservatives about ourselves.
vanity | September 1, 2007 | Nathanbedford
Seems to me that confusing politics and Law has led many posters into a welter of contradictions. The Supreme Court has created a problem for conservatives who view this matter from a law perspective alone when it declared that homosexual sex between consenting adults in private is a constitutionally protected right of privacy. In effect, the Supreme Court wrecked the conservative position for those of us who see the question of homosexuality exclusively or largely through a legal prism. So we conservatives have a problem: Many of us have been left behind by the Supreme Court, many of us simply do not accept that homosexual sex under any circumstances is anything but a repugnant act which every state should have the right to criminalize. So we, or at lease many of us, are out of sync with the law.
The homosexual sex that we presume that Senator Craig sought would have been perfectly legal had it been conducted in a private dwelling. But it was not, rather it was to be conducted in a public toilet. The next problem to deal with in the Craig matter arises because the Supreme Court has legitimatized homosexual sex, and since there is no criminal offense involved in soliciting heterosexual sex in a public place (it is certainly constitutionally protected free speech in places much more public than a public toilet with private stalls, solicitation of prostitution, of course, excepted), how can it be a criminal act to solicit homosexual sex in quasi-public or quasi-private environments such as the adjoining stalls of a public toilet?
Are we to conclude that it is proper to make criminal a solicitation of homosexual sex but not the solicitation of homosexual sex? Are we to presume that the solicitation generates a high likelihood of actual sex being conducted in the public toilet? Then do we properly conclude that such a solicitation should be criminal and not protected constitutionally because of the danger of the public stumbling upon the act and being affronted? But does not the solicitation of heterosexual sex pose the same danger of afronting the public? Or should the law acknowledge that the sight of coupled homosexuals is far more disconcerting than the image of coupled heterosexuals? If the law admits that much, is it not saying that homosexuality is somehow depraved? How can that be squared with the Supreme Court's ruling that the homosexual sex act itself, if private and done between consenting adults, is constitutionally protected?
We criminilize the solicitation of one kind of sex which is legal if private, and do not criminalize solicitation of another kind which is also legal if private (and not commercialized). Why? We criminalize both kinds if conducted in public. Why is one solicitation more obnoxious than the other?
This is an example of the trouble the law gets into what it attempts to criminalize a tool or means of a crime instead of, or, at least as well as, the criminal behavior itself. So we attempt to make guns illegal to prevent gun violence instead of concentrating on prosecuting the violence itself. We criminalize public Intoxication and possession of illegal drugs rather than prosecuting the antisocial behavior which they might produce. We go one step further with drugs when we criminalize the possesion of paraphernalia because the possession of the stuff might lead to the use of drugs which in turn, might lead to antisocial or criminal behavior. I suppose we must ultimately stop this chain of causation when we get to Original Sin.
The next problem with the Craig case, of course, is that no sex whatsoever occurred, no verbal solicitation of sex is even alleged to have occurred. One must infer the solicitation from such abstract and arcane clues as hand signals and foot tapping. Surely these actions in and of themselves carry no danger to the public, no innocent child would be debauched as a result of encountering such hand signals and foot tappings, the public would be in no danger of being affronted by the solicitation itself. So now we have been brought to a place where perfectly innocuous gestures have been criminalized. Can this anomaly be explained on any basis other than that society, despite the Supreme Court and despite political correctness, is still very much ambivalent about homosexuality?
Let's be honest, conservatives tend viscerally to draw a sharp demarcation between heterosexual and homosexual sex because they find the latter utterly repugnant. Liberals on the other hand have striven these last few decades to make a virtue of the perversion. Indeed, in politically correct circles it is now incorrect to refer to homosexuality in anything like those terms. [And as you point out in your post, in many jurisdictions much free speech has been criminalized in the service of homosexuality.] So we conservatives have been abandoned by the law and by the elites and so many conservatives are frankly frustrated and angry. These anomalies are even harder for conservatives to accept than for the public in general because, as conservatives, we should be very concerned for the integrity of the law. And whatever else you feel about the Craig case, or about the Fort Lauderdale public toilet matter, or San Francisco bathhouses, or private consensual sex between consenting adult homosexuals in Texas, every thinking conservative must agree that the structure of law concerning homosexuality is a shambles.
Most of us find the contemplation of anonymous sex-especially anonymous homosexual sex in a dirty public toilet- to be utterly abhorrent. But is it right to write laws which make otherwise innocent behavior (nonconfrontational solicitation) criminal ? Is it right to send our cops into public toilets with instructions to skate on the edge of entrapment? Is it right to condone our police when they extort a plea of guilty by exploiting the public obliquy which will come down upon a homosexual who defends himself against a flawed case in a public hearing? Is all of this moral corruption worth the price to avoid the potential that we might be affronted by homosexual acts in a public toilet? Have we lost our soul and our quest for decency? Have we compromised a far more precious possession, the rule of law?
The actual outworking of the legal process in the Larry Craig case is a perfect illustration of this mess. Craig pleaded guilty not to a homosexual act in public, not to the solicitation of homosexual sex in public, but to a disorderly conduct rap. Worse, most observers agree that the state had an extremely weak case if it attempted to prove its original charge of solicitation. Why did Craig plead? Obviously to avoid the stigma and the public disgrace implicit in the charges against him. I have no doubt that Senator Craig was actually looking for homosexual sex in a public toilet. In my view, the police were shameful and exploiting his vulnerability in this area.They knew perfectly well that they did not have a righteous bust for overt conduct such as public lewdness, or even solicitation. . Actually, I do not think the cop had even made a case of disorderly conduct! I also think Craig got a damn raw deal when the cop exploited his vulnerability. But my concern is not for this pathetic Senator, it is for the integrity of the law and for the political implications which this affair raises for the Republican Party, and the conservative movement, in 2008. Larry Craig himself obviously desperately needs to come to Jesus, but the Republican Party and the conservative movement better look to the state of its own soul as well.
What should be the proper conservative perspective on laws concerning homosexuality?
First, we must acknowledge that the Supreme Court decision in the Texas case exists. Second, we deplore the decision because it is a departure from states' rights-but I think it would be a very serious blunder to deplore the decision because we find homosexuality icky. The world has moved beyond the point where our society arrogates the right to criminalize unseemliness in private, consensual, adult sex. We like to think of ourselves as far more enlightened than the Victorians and we regard them as being a culture locked in irrational sexual taboos. But it was Lady Astor, very much a Victorian, who said, "you can do anything you like in public providing you don't frighten the horses."
Second, we must recognize the tides of jurisprudence, culture, and public consensus are flowing against us. The Supreme Court opinion is very unlikely to be reversed, so the law has already moved substantially against the traditional "conservative" position. Concurrently, the legal and social advances of homosexuals in our society are unlikely to be reversed. The homosexual community is an exceedingly active and effective lobby which can only be expected to campaign vigilantly for their own perceived rights. They are winning the battle. Conservatives who stand against them are impotently standing athwart history and must expect an unrelenting series of Larry Craig type incidents which increasingly alienate us from the general public. I think a truly conservative approach to the issue of homosexuality is to distinguish between that which is tolerable and that which is not because it conflicts with a competing higher value. For example, private homosexual sex between consenting adults is something that a true conservative who respects individual liberty should have little trouble concluding that is an area not for the Lawgiver but for the Redeemer. The flagrant, obnoxious, in your face primping and even soliciting, should be outlawed because it is repugnant to a higher value, which is the welfare of our children. Likewise proselytizing of our children in the school system. Homosexual marriage can be opposed because it degrades a higher institution, heterosexual marriage. Civil unions, on the other hand, should be easy for a conservative to tolerate because he believes in the freedom of contract. (emphasis added)
Third, as conservatives we fear, above all things, intrusive government. We should be wary lest we tolerate government peccadilloes against homosexuals because we are disgusted by them. As conservatives we are rightly or reluctant to turn to the government for solutions to social problems. To the degree that we regard homosexuality as a "problem" we should be very reluctant to look to the criminal law system as the solution. That means that we must be careful not to criminalize or even stigmatize homosexuality because we find it repugnant. Conversely, we must not be intimidated by political correctness from insisting that the law protect our children from physical, psychological and educational abuse. We must be careful to punish acts where appropriate, but not the status. Neither should we tolerate that the status be exalted. We should act only when the horses are frightened.
So all of this brings us to the political implications of the Craig scandal. I have posted in another context as recently as a few days ago my concern about Republicans who throw their fellows to the enemy as soon as storm clouds gather. In fact, I make reference to this deplorable tendency in my about page. I do not think it is necessary to consider what to do about Senator Larry Craig, he is a problem in the process of resolving itself and I have no doubt that he will not be the Senator from Idaho on January 2, 2008. His senatorial career is virtually over. But I dodge the issue, what should be done about Senator Larry Craig if he does not go voluntarily? He should be shunned by the party and all support for him should be withdrawn not because he is a homosexual but because he is a damn hypocrite. Craig did not do much of anything legally wrong-he did not frighten the horses-if but he brings disgrace to the party by his flagrant hypocrisy. And the party must rid itself of him because failure to do so would lay it open to the charge of hypocrisy. He represented the party in the United States Senate for the state of Idaho and he lied to us about matters of morality and "family values." It is one thing to have a rot in the body of the party and to remove that rotten apple from the barrel and quite another thing to regularize perversity as the Democrats have done in similar circumstances.
What to do about other homosexuals? Do we welcome them into the party? I should think so, so long as they are open and otherwise comport themselves in sync with conservative values. That is, when they are not hypocrites.
Ironically, the remarks of Barney Frank seemed to me to be the best placed of this controversy. Of course he did not object to Craig's homosexuality and thought he should remain in the Senate. But he did criticize the man's hypocrisy. In this Barney Frank struck home. So long as we as conservatives attack homosexuals for their status as homosexuals rather than for their overt acts which are repugnant to a higher value, we are open to the hypocrisy charge. And every time a Republican homosexual is outed, we will become a laughingstock. We are open to the charge that we are hypocrites when we invoke the criminal law to enforce our predilections about sex because we are the party which says it stands for individual liberty and limited government. The Democrats say we intrude government into the bedroom and in this case they are right. So, when they say the same thing about abortion, we cannot effectively deny the charge even though a much higher value-a baby's life-is at stake. [Here there can be no compromise, the existence of a helpless and innocent victim screams for the intervention of the state and the criminalization of the act.]
We fall into this hypocrisy trap when we make the fundamental mistake respecting the nature of homosexuality vis-à-vis society. Democrats accuse us of hypocrisy because closet homosexuals within our ranks preach "family values." Why do we let the Democrats conflate these two issues? Because we have done so ourselves. Homosexual activity in private between consenting adults who are not married constitute no threat to my marriage. Nor do they constitute a threat to the institution of marriage. Adultery poses a threat to the adulterer's marriage whether the adultery is homosexual or heterosexual. The adulterer is not a greater hypocrite because his adultery is homosexual. I submit that no-fault divorce is a far graver threat to the institution of marriage than is the fact of homosexuality in our society.
Let us clear out all this underbrush so that we should ourselves not be accused of hypocrisy. Let us resist homosexual expansionism in defense of higher values but let us not confuse homosexuals with the devil. Let us come clear in our thinking about how we want the law to work and how we want our politicians to behave. Let us reject utterly those who demagogue this issue.
And let us have a care for the horses.
Again, my compliments to you on the quality of your post even though I find as much to disagree with as to agree with.
It was the first human institution of all.
That’s correct and there was no church involvement for thousands of years. In fact, there is no record of any church involvement in the entire Bible. There is only family, friends and government.
Unitarian-Universalists, Metropolitan Community Church, Unity Church, UCC, Disciples of Christ, TEC, ELCA, PCUSA, Moravian Church, elements within the (U.S.) UMC, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, Alliance of Baptists, and counting ...
"Marriage" is part of Natural Law --- whether you're a Methodist, a Mormon, a Muslim, or a reasonable Multi-culti --- because it stabilizes relations of the procreative kind, and thus unites children securely and publicly with their natural father and mother.
That's where a child gets his identity --- his sense of natural origin --- his place in an organic kinship system --- and the nurturance and providence of a man and woman who will show him how to be at home in this world of men and women.
Marriage is unique. It is not just a set-up between consenting adults (that's what private contracts are for.) It is organically intergenerational. And it is irreplaceable.
I've posted this before but Sam Schulman's seminal article on kinship is a must-read in understanding why marriage is the foundational building block of all societies throughout history and why those who deny it's unique inter-generational and kinship role totally miss the point. Only a society so narcissistic that it views children as a "lifestyle accessory" rather than a sacred gift and life vocation could confuse the inherently sterile with the fertile source of all civilization.
Thank you for that wonderful link. Merry Christmas to you!