Posted on 06/07/2004 4:54:39 PM PDT by JPhill9123
Louis Vuitton and Pink Chiffon: Why Conservatives Should Support Gay Marriage
June 4, 2004
by John Phillips
There are few issues in American life that can make seemingly normal people turn dippy on a dime -- and since Justin Timberlake hasn’t disrobed any member of the Jackson family of late -- the never ending saga over gay marriage has stepped up to fill the void.
Like most conservatives, I’ve always believed that when it comes to protecting liberty the following rules apply: (1) individuals know better than politicians, (2) the states know better than the feds and (3) those who think that the Constitution should grow like Topsy are always wrong. Unfortunately, when it comes to gay marriage many conservatives suddenly develop amnesia. It’s the only issue that I know of that can make committed Republicans get down on their hands and knees and beg for government regulation. Liberals from coast to coast should take these revelations as a direct assault on their livelihood – if Republicans are going start legislating the excruciating minutia of every day life, what use will the country have for Democrats?
Instead of assuming that legalized marriage between homosexuals would lead to an increased amount of open bars and country club dinners in August, some social conservatives are giving hysterical predictions of societal chaos.
Consider some of the following quotes:
While pushing a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage Colorado Republican Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave frets, “If we redefine marriage, anything goes…You could allow polygamy, group marriage.”
Republican New Hampshire state Representative Bob Letourneau says that things aren’t relative in the Granite State, “We do not allow cousins to marry in New Hampshire…you cannot marry your sister or brother, and we don’t allow blind people to drive.” How novel.
But the best quote comes from Nicholas DiMarzio, the Catholic bishop of Brooklyn, who ponders, “Why can’t we have marriages between people and pets?” Hmm, I think a better question would be ‘what is wrong with relationships (that include marriage) between consenting adults?’ But the powers that be in the Catholic Church may not be the best ones to answer that little mystery.
Based on these prognostications you’d think that allowing gays to engage in holy matrimony would result in a mad rush of homosexual Mormons wishing to wed multiple dogs that may or may not be from the same litter.
These arguments are total fallacies. Legalizing gay marriage is as likely to lead to polygamy, incest and bestiality as it is to bring earthquakes, peace in the Middle East and a reunification of Ike and Tina Turner.
A marriage is simply a contract between two consenting adults, who both agree to the terms. These agreements happen every day in a variety of forms and rarely need the consent of politicians, the clergy or Fred Phelps.
Look at it this way: If Kobe Bryant decided to re-sign with the Lakers, you wouldn’t expect him to need Cardinal Roger Mahoney’s permission. (Although, if more allegations of sexual assault emerge against the NBA superstar, the good Cardinal could provide some helpful tips on how to quietly transfer him to another team.)
Why should homosexuals be treated any differently?
Banning gay marriage has nothing to do with discriminating against homosexuals, social conservatives say -- It’s just about ‘protecting the institution of marriage.’ And thank God for that! You never know when Al Gayda is going to strike next. If the federal government wasn’t so successful at ending poverty and drug addiction, I’d really be worried!
Let’s be honest, if the do-gooder crowd was truly interested in ‘protecting marriage’ you’d think that they would want to make getting married easier and getting divorced harder. Why not criminalize adultery? I’d love to see Bill Clinton sign that “Defense of Marriage Act.” Or how about prohibiting divorce? Congressman Ken Calvert (R-CA) could sponsor that amendment – he has some experience in that department. And if they ever get really serious about saving the institution, they can always ban Elizabeth Taylor from ever exchanging nuptials again. The possibilities are endless.
In reality, this movement is not about protecting marriage – it is about a majority of Americans being grossed out by the thought of two men kissing. I call it the ‘ew factor.’ But there are a lot of things out there that make us wince, yet we don’t prohibit them by law. Many people would be disgusted if they saw two dwarfs making out – but that doesn’t mean we should prohibit Gary Bauer from getting married. Besides, don’t our legislators have taxes to cut, wars to win and worthless social programs to slash?
Americans should always be careful before giving the government and clergy control over private agreements between private parties. After all, if conservatives are willing to give Big Brother the power to tell you who you can or can’t marry, why get upset when liberals want to dictate what your salary should be, what you should pay for rent or whether or not you really need your sports utility vehicle? You’re either for big, intrusive government or you aren’t.
Conservatives are better than this. We know that power is a zero-sum game – when you give power to the government you take it away from individuals. And, if we don’t trust the government to deliver the mail why would we give them the power to determine who we sleep next to?
Let’s leave the arranged marriages up to Aztec chiefs and Hollywood reality show producers – where they belong.
John Phillips is a student at Claremont Graduate University and operates the website www.johnphillipsworld.com -- His commentaries have appeared in the Orange County Register.
This is a libertarian not a conservative argument. Conservatives believe timeless values don't change with the political seasons. Its our duty to uphold them even when they aren't popular cause these values are right no matter what era we live in.
And, if we don’t trust the government to deliver the mail why would we give them the power to determine who we sleep next to?Nobody cares what consenting adult you sleep next to. The issue is marriage. Here is a free clue: conservatives are not (necessarily) libertarians.
The author doesn't really address the huge gulf that exists between those who consider homosexuality a blasphemy to God as opposed to those who are just grossed out.
NOT!
There is a serious overlap between conservative and libertarian philosophies, not to be dismissed with a wave of the hand. One could say that the Founders (Jefferson comes to mind) exhibited quite a libertarian streak.
Logically it may not seem to compute, that turning a blind eye to shacking up with whoever you please equates to requiring that the state bless these things as "marriages." BUT in the devil's plan it's all part of the same strategy.
It's b.s. that gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy. Every argument made for gay marriage could be made for polygamy (privacy, consenting adults, "it's their culture," etc.)
Another thing to think about: If the government should stay out of personal contracts, then how will people get married? Well, there's religion, but there are precious few religions that support gay marriage, considering consumating a marriage is by sex, and gay sex is an ABHORENCE. I know you agree with me, but just putting it out there.
Can only count to 5 then has to start over with the other hand.
Why even people? Why can't I marry my cat and demand equal recognition?
I'm assuming your divorce was long and brutal. I've never heard marriage described as "excruciating minutia."
The first thing everyone is probably going to ask or assume is that you are gay. I state that, but I find it immaterial.
Actually, adultery is illegal in the military. Check out what the UCMJ has to say on the subject.
The reason I highlight this part ofyour argument is that I find it the strongest part. Thousands of people are scream to protect marriage by outlawing gay marriage, but if you ask any of them about eliminating no-fault divorce, and they fail to see the connection. Why do we have a "cooling off" period for buying a hand gun, but anyone with the fee can get married, or get divorced in certain states. If you are a Catholic, and your spouse wants to divorce you, holy wedlock or not, you are forced to spend a tremendous amount of money getting an anullment, spend the rest of your life alone, or leave the church. Whose rights are being trampled then? I saw this happen to an aunt and to an uncle. Both were devout Catholics and both came home to find their spouse had cleaned out the house. Neither is Catholic today. My Uncle spent nearly ten years trying to put his life back together, especially as to role the church would play in that life. Granted each bishop can essentially determine this for his diocese, but many make it difficult.
My biggest problem with the entire issue of gay marriage is the same arguement I had against Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell policy." Isn't there something more important that we could be discussing? We are in the middle of a multiple-front war, and we're facing a shortage of military personnel due to low enlistments. We have an economy that is struggling valiantly to come back to life. We're facing a fuel shortage, and our infrastructure for producing addtional fuels is either hamstrung by the eco-movements, or hasn't been touch in nearly 30 years. You know, even if we had crude oil at a half the price it is today, and 1000 times the reserve, we still don't have the refining capacity to cover the increased demand.
Let's not forget social security, health care, education, home land security, the power grid, the struggling airline industry, etc, etc, etc.
While even these issues are not all monumentally huge, they are all far more important than what two consenting adults want to do on their own.
Conservatives need to fight the important fights, and I see gay marriage as a lose-lose battle for everyone.
The fact that Rosie O'Donnell has a wife, or my trying to change that relationship:
will not put food on my table for my children,
will not increase my business revenues,
will not bring the cost of gasoline down to a level where I can afford to travel more than 20 miles from home,
will not make our borders any more secure,
will help me pay my mortgage
will not allow my parents to spent their retirement funds on themselves instead of medication.
will not help me pay for a college education for four children.
I could go on and on.
Let's focus on truly important issues. This is not one of them, unless anyone can tell me how it impacts any of the above.
I'm sorry, but you missed that putting these turkeys on the list of privilegees will do a real number on this country. I hear tell that God will not be very pleased either.
Unfortunately, we decriminalized adultery. I am all for the immediate extinction of "no fault" divorce. I am horrified that fellow Catholics come from all across the globe to have their marriages annulled here in the US because its easier to have it done here than anywhere else on earth. I'm disgusted with many US Catholic bishops for (among other things) allowing this to go on.
Why does not the headquarters of this religious body put the kibosh on such clergy, instead of sitting back and basically saying "what me worry, God will curse them in due time." If anyone had the authority structure on earth to do that if it wished, the RCC does. I mean it's unlikely that these huge cathedrals will go off and join another denomination if they do.
I want something better than the aftermath of Roe for my children's generation.
Be careful: slavery and miscegenation prohibitions used to be "timeless laws."
I will never, ever understand why it is that the American Catholic heirarchy is so completely blase when it comes to annullment. It simply defies explanation. Those in charge, not surprisingly, don't even try to explain it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.