Recovering from an otherwise devastating election, some conservatives believe they have found a silver lining amidst the rubble: the continuing salience of “culture war” issues in general, and the subject of gay rights in particular. At a National Review post-election symposium seeking to answer the question, “Whither Conservatism?” social conservatives Maggie Gallagher, Jeffrey Bell and Ed Whelan all encouraged conservatives to stress gay issues even more in the future, and most everyone in the audience nodded in agreement. Rich Lowry, the editor of that magazine, recently wrote a column declaring “No way, no how,” to those calling for a détente in the battle over gay marriage and abortion. And last month, Richard Cizik, the former chief lobbyist of the National Association of Evangelicals, was fired after he expressed support for gay civil unions, a foreboding sign that the country’s politically active evangelicals do not intend to abandon their hard-line stance against any legal recognition of gay relationships.
At first glance, social conservatives have reason for optimism. In November, Arkansas voters overwhelmingly passed a law banning gay adoption and anti-gay marriage amendments succeeded in Florida, Arizona and, California, the latter victory giving conservatives the most hope seeing that it occurred in the country’s most populous (and one of its most liberal) states. Some conservatives have grown drunk off the wine of this triumph, citing the 70% support among African-Americans to ban gay marriage as a sign that a significant portion of this most reliable of Democratic voting blocs could potentially be poached if the GOP stresses its anti-gay bona fides even more. While these victories at the polls may be heartening to the base of the Republican Party, the continued propagation of policies opposed to the advancement of the gay rights agenda will doom the GOP for a generation.
Given the fact that nearly 40 states have passed laws in some way or another defining marriage as between a man and a woman, the notion that conservatives should drop gay issues may seem counterintuitive. But these successes are illusory. America has witnessed a sea change in attitudes on the subject of homosexuality over the past 35 years. In 1973, for instance, 73% of Americans viewed same-sex relations as “always wrong.” In 2006, that figure stood at 56%. In February of 2004, 61% of Americans supported banning gay marriage; two years later that figure dropped to just 51%. Likewise, support for the right of gays to serve openly in the military now stands at nearly 80% (a majority of Americans opposed open service when it first became a national controversy in the early months of the first Clinton administration), and about half of Americans support allowing gays to adopt children.
The reason for this liberalization of attitudes has much to do with the increasing (as well as increasingly benign) visibility of gay people in everyday life. But it’s also attributable to the growing acceptance of younger Americans, including evangelicals, who are far more liberal on the issue of homosexuality than their elders. While 52% of Californians voted in favor of Proposition 8, 61% of Californians aged 18-29 voted against stripping gay couples of the right to marry. A poll published in November found that 58% of young white evangelicals support either marriage (26%) or civil unions (32%) for gay couples (by contrast, only 9% of white evangelicals over 30 support gay marriage). It’s important to note that this increasing acceptance of homosexuality among younger Americans does not indicate a more general liberal political outlook, as they are also more opposed to abortion than their elders. (For instance, 70% of younger evangelicals support “making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion,” compared to 39% of older ones). Younger Americans are making a conscious, harm-based distinction between the costs of abortion and the apparent lack of harm in allowing gay people to marry.
Ah, but some social conservatives say, these numbers will change as younger generations become older. “Until the younger generation starts to get married and begin families, it is probably too soon to declare traditional civil marriage dead,” writes Kevin Vance in the Weekly Standard. But is there any correlation between getting older and becoming more hostile to the notion of gay marriage?
“If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain,” is an old adage often misattributed to Winston Churchill. Trite as the sentiment might seem, it was a keen observation: as people age and begin to bear the burdens of life that their parents once assumed for them – paying taxes, tuitions and mortgages, buying the groceries and the car insurance – they become more conservative. With responsibility comes an appreciation for frugality, prudence and a belated respect for tradition. On economic issues, it’s obvious why the older are more conservative than the younger; the socialist illusions of an idealistic college student whose tuition is paid for by his parents are scotched once that young man becomes a working stiff and learns first hand the realities of caring for oneself and putting food on the table for a family.
While people tend to become more conservative on a whole array of issues as they age, there is no reason to think that homosexuality is one of those issues. People understandably adopt a more traditional notion of marriage and family as they get older, get married, and have children – realizing the emptiness of the dominant “hook-up” ethos in high school and university – but there’ s no logical reason for a newfound appreciation of “family values” to also include hostility to homosexuality. Indeed, the adoption of a more conservative stance on “family values,” namely, a comprehension of the importance of the family structure and a disapproval of divorce, single-parenting and promiscuity, ought to imply support for gay marriage, acknowledging it as the establishment of a stabilizing institution for a minority group (gay men especially) that, up until recently, never had such legal options and were discouraged from “assimilating” by the prevailing homosexual subculture.
Indeed, believing in the importance of “traditional marriage” and gay marriage are not mutually exclusive. While conservatives had some cause to critique the emerging gay liberation movement of the 1970’s for its liberationist, politically radical tinge, today’s generation of gay activists are as much committed to stabilizing institutions and the integration of gay people into mainstream life as their predecessors were in mobilizing gays into some sexual vanguard. Whereas the gay Left decried gay marriage as patriarchic and sexist less than two decades ago – and vilified the gay writers, nearly all self-identified conservatives and libertarians, who advocated it – the gay movement has now embraced marriage as its signature cause. Conservatives should see the near-universal support for marriage rights among gays as a vindication of traditionalism and assimilation in a community that was once marinated in the tenets of socialism, sexual revolution and anti-establishment dogma. Conservatives are absolutely right to decry the breakdown of the family and the negative effects it has had on American society, but wrong to list the increased acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage as being an element of that more general societal decline.
It’s not just the young who are becoming more liberal on the matter of gay rights. Older generations have altered their attitudes on the subject in part due to the dramatic changes in the way homosexuality has been portrayed by the mainstream media (once as a threatening, diseased minority, gays are now recognized as members of local communities, respected professionals, public figures, etc.), as well as by their own personal interactions with gay family members, friends and colleagues.
Although it’s impossible to forecast just how important the issue of gay rights will be in the coming years, I predict that it will gain even more prominence in voters’ minds. That’s because the 18-35 cohort views the acceptance of gay people as equal citizens as the civil rights cause of its generation (cynical attempts by conservatives to inflame gay vs. black animus by falsely claiming that gay rights activists attempt to equate the modern-day plight of gays who can’t marry to blacks who couldn’t vote will backfire). While today’s young don’t show the same voter turnout rates as their elders, they will inevitably form a larger part of the electorate and will be less comfortable voting for a party that denies equality to their many openly gay friends and colleagues (and that uses gays as a wedge issue to win elections). Sticking to anti-gay politics will cast off a whole generation of voters from the GOP.
Of course, there is no single issue that lost the election for McCain, and it’s beyond my powers of analysis to conclude whether the GOP’s positions on issues like gay rights, abortion and stem cells were the reason for its defeat. McCain faced an uphill battle in a particularly bad climate for Republicans, and it’s more likely that the faltering economy and a historically unpopular Republican president played the decisive role. But the fact that social conservatism wasn’t the primary reason, or even a reason at all, for the GOP’s recent losses doesn’t mean that the party’s continued reliance on anti-gay politics will not be a problem in the future.
Conservatives face a stark choice. They can succumb to the short-term temptation of erstwhile electoral victory and continue to support regressive policies on gay rights that are fast going out of fashion. Or they can look at the statistics, talk to their younger colleagues, coolly survey the direction in which the culture is inevitably headed, and plan accordingly. This doesn’t necessarily require the GOP to support gay marriage, just to stand out of the way of what’s coming. A properly conservative party does not just wish to preserve the useful traditions of the past, but to adapt those traditions for the future.
102 responses so far
1 senorlechero // Jan 21, 2009 at 1:28 pm
This post is a great example of “since everyone else believes a lie, I may as well go along with it”
You completely miss the point of conservative attitudes and beliefs on gay marriage. We believe it is IMMORAL and anti-familiy.
Your argument can be injected into any liberal vs conservative debate and used to say…”Just become liberal”
Good job in bolstering liberalism.
2 R.E. Munn // Jan 21, 2009 at 1:31 pm
I would be curious to know if Mr. Kirchick would abide the solutions described in the linked article as okay because that is where the culture is inevitably headed?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/health/20partners.html?scp=5&sq=david%20tuller&st=cse
3 Angry Oriole // Jan 21, 2009 at 2:34 pm
senorlechero, I would welcome an explanation as to how exactly gays marriage is anti-family. I think divorce and infidelity are much clearer and more-present dangers to family life in America.
4 erasmuse // Jan 21, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Opposition to gay marriage was a winning issue even though Republican leaders ran away from it. As for trends, the split on American favoring and opposing making homosexual relations *illegal* was 43-43 in 1977, 57-32 in 1986, 46-49 in 2004, and 40-55 in 2008. The percentage anti-sodomy-laws has generally increased over time; the percentage pro-sodomy-laws has stayed about the same. On what other issue have voters resisted the opinion of both the Republican and Democratic elite so staunchly?
5 erasmuse // Jan 21, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Citation for the numbers in that last comment:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108115/Americans-Evenly-Divided-Morality-Homosexuality.aspx
6 senorlechero // Jan 21, 2009 at 3:20 pm
angry oriole…Please re-read my comment and notice that I said…”We believe…”. But it goes beyond must conservative belief. Families are primarily for creating and raising children. That is a fact of nature as well as a religious belief. Gay familes must go outside the “couple” to create children. Children need and deserve both a mother and a father. Raising divorced, broken, and disfucntional families is a straw man argument that does not undermine the truths about family that I have stated
7 ronin72 // Jan 21, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Mr. Kirchick,
I feel there’s a drive to conflate this issue to an importance it doesn’t deserve. It’s not one we could ever win. Our national identity is a poison right now. We gain nothing from trying to woo the homosexual community. The things that are going to sell our party are preparedness, unity of message, and fielding the best candidate on the strongest possible platform. We can’t win by trying to out “liberal” the liberals… obviously John McCain proved the folly of that. If the Obama Administration decides to go this way, let them. But I know the only people who will reap any benefit from gay “marriage” are the lawyers. And why “marriage?” I like “Civil Union” much better.
8 empirical // Jan 21, 2009 at 3:54 pm
James Kirchick,
I do not believe it is a fair characterization to say that the republican party is anti gay. The majority of republicans, I believe, hold certain values dear and do not think that because a minority wants to redefine whats has over thousands of years constituted marriage they should be able to do so.
I do agree with you that there has been a shift of “attitudes on the subject in part due to the dramatic changes in the way homosexuality has been portrayed by the mainstream media (once as a threatening, diseased minority, gays are now recognized as members of local communities, respected professionals, public figures, etc.), as well as by their own personal interactions with gay family members, friends and colleagues.” Effective PR campaigns do work but do not always accurately reflect the advances, or slide, in cultures and societies.
9 senorlechero // Jan 21, 2009 at 4:28 pm
GoDucks….Great Post! I like how you think and am proud to be a like minded conservative
10 Ploughman // Jan 21, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Sure, gay people should have equal rights-as individuals having the same rights as all other individuals. But to assert that “equal rights” requires the creation of same-sex marriage presumes that couples, as couples, have legal rights. Do they? Should couples have rights beyond those of the two individuals involved? And should courts be able to legislate same-sex marriage into existence? Conservatives should stand on principle regardless of what is “hip”. Voters who prefer unprincipled opportunism will probably vote for liberals anyway.
11 Chad // Jan 21, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I cannot believe that powerline actually linked this website. This website and this article is the epitome of what is wrong in the republican party. Essentially, ditch conservatism and try to be democrat-lite to win elections.
Welcome to rino.com
12 roddyreta // Jan 21, 2009 at 5:27 pm
It’s people like Chad who are pretty much driving the GOP into a ditch.
Whenever they hear a position they don’t like, they cover their ears and scream “RINO!” “RINO!”
13 whitetower // Jan 21, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Well, it’s pretty obvious why virtually no data was given by the author to support his claims: election and polling data don’t support them.
In no state — not one — has gay marriage been supported by a majority of voters in ballot initiatives, including the most liberal states like MA and CA. True, not every traditional ballot measure has won, but *all* same-sex marriage measures have lost.
The 18-29 (not 35 — virtually no poll lumps 18 year-olds with 35 year-olds) cohort is essentially meaningless in that there aren’t enough of them. Indeed, given the “graying” of America they’re getting fewer all the time as a proportion of the electorate. No election strategy should ever appeal to a numerically diminishing demographic.
14 Chad // Jan 21, 2009 at 5:46 pm
If I am wrong, then tell me why McCain lost and President Bush ended with disasterously low approval ratings? They both subsrcibed to a more moderate to liberal Reublican party.
Lets face it, if you “redefine conservatism” then it’s not really conservatism anymore. You know… its name only.
15 roddyreta // Jan 21, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Do you honestly think McCain and Bush were unpopular because of their position on gay rights? Get real.
16 jackryan // Jan 21, 2009 at 6:17 pm
This isn’t about “Gay Rights”. It is about Gay Marriage”, there is a difference. People who are attracted to the same sex have the same rights as everyone else. They can marry an person of the opposite gender if that person is of appropriate age, is not married to someone else, and consents to the marriage. The argument is then made that they can’t marry the person they love and thus they don’t have the same rights. But then it begs the question, if you should be able to marry the person you love, can you marry the persons you love? What if the person you love is not a person, but a beloved friend who happens to be a pet? Marriage is between a man and a woman because that is the best scenario for the formation of hopefully a good family unit. Before you start telling me about all the disfunctional families and how some gay families can be more functional than a traditional family, I understand that.
As I see it, homosexuality is an inclination that some have and some will never have. An inclination that if fostered, becomes stronger. I can never become an alcoholic because I never drink. I have friends that drink often, but alcohol does not hold a strong attraction over them and they will never be alcoholics because they lack the inclination. I have other friends who alcohol has strong attraction and they really have difficulties in their lives because of it.
17 sinz54 // Jan 21, 2009 at 6:17 pm
The issue the GOP needs to face is changing demographics.
Abortion, and to a somewhat lesser extent gay marriage, are still hot-button issues for the GOP base of evangelicals and other hard-core social conservatives.
But as a percentage of the electorate, that cohort is shrinking. Among the fastest-growing voting blocs in America are single moms and Hispanics. And they are motivated by other hot-button issues: Health care and immigration respectively. Finally, a stunning Pew survey done a year or two ago shows that married white Protestants are now down to only some 51% (!!!) of the electorate–and that percentage continues to drop gradually each year.
So the issue is not gay marriage per se. It’s whether the GOP has a future if it continues to position itself as the Heterosexual Older Married White Christians Party–and fails to appeal to most others. The GOP has been down this track before. First Nixon, and then Reagan, showed how the GOP could appeal to white ethnic voters (Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, etc.), breaking the old stereotype of the GOP being the upscale WASP party. Now the GOP must expand beyond its existing base again.
18 jackryan // Jan 21, 2009 at 6:33 pm
The GOP wins when it runs on Conservatism. Why did America get disaffected by the GOP? High government spending, allowing the Democrats to push their “Home Loans for those who shouldn’t be able to afford them because it is the fair thing to do” agenda. John McCain was the epitome of this more moderate GOP that is supposed to win, and yet he lost. How could that happen? Well, because Conservatism wins, not Republicanism. Conservativism doesn’t win when the conservative either betrays conservative values or can’t articilate them, but it wins when they can. Bobby Gindall is a prime example. Conservatism wins because it works, not because it is politically correct. After four years of more liberalism (much of the past 4 years has been liberalism disguised as compassionate conservatism) the country should be more in the mood for real conservatism. So please stop it with we lost the election because we weren’t moderate enough. John McCain is as democrat as a republican can be without changing parties. That is why the base didn’t turn out as high for him. Had Palin been the nominee, we would have had a few less “moderates” but a lot more of the basse would have actually went in and voted.
19 roddyreta // Jan 21, 2009 at 6:38 pm
jackryan, the GOP “wins” when it runs on conservatism — with white males for the most part. In the past, enough of these people have voted to give GOP the margin of victory. But these people are shrinking as a percentage of the voting population, and blacks and hispanics and single women are voting in larger numbers — and these people have never voted for the GOP, even during its glory years.
The GOP, if it wants to be a party of the future, is going to have to change its message. If Obama turns about to be an abject failure, maybe it can postpone this process, but I doubt Obama will fail that miserably.
20 Chad // Jan 21, 2009 at 6:45 pm
I think Bush and McCain were unpoular because they rejected conservatism. Liberals and left leaning Democrats are never going to vote for Democrat-Lite when they can have the real thing. Conservatives are never going to vote Democrat-Lite either, because they are conservatives. That leaves the squishy, I re-evaluate my position on most issues every election, moderates and independants. They are not as numerous as some would have you believe, but because the major parties are enarly identical in size, they get a lot of attention. The GOP needs to lear to sell their brand, not their soul. That is the only future that will save us from becoming far western Europe. And being as Sinz brought up hispanics… they are a great example of a VERY social conservative group that is just begging to be reached out to. Black Americans also tend to be very conservative on the individual issues. The GOP needs to start reminding the newer generations of all the great things the Republican party has done for Civil rights since it’s inception. Democrats couldn’t hold a candle to it and actually should be flat out ashamed of their past (both recent and far). Yet they have let Democrats define them, and your average street walker actually thinks the Democrats are better supporters of civil rights. Nothing could be further from the truth.
21 arhooley // Jan 21, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Oh dear. Can we agree that “social conservatism” and all the other issues (national defense, economic freedom, school choice, the banishment of junk science, the defeat of tribalism and affirmative action) are in some way separate?
What is religious tolerance for if not for social conservatives to preach and educate to their hearts’ content that homosexuality and abortion are evil choices that ruin your relationship with God? Take it to the streets, socons, but keep it out of civil law.
22 roddyreta // Jan 21, 2009 at 8:14 pm
buckw, just because Kirchick is himself gay doesn’t mean that his opinion is “irrelevant” as you put it. Also, the New Republic has had conservative writers in the past, although it’s certainly more liberal these days.
23 roddyreta // Jan 21, 2009 at 8:15 pm
I think the point is, you can be very conservative and respect gay rights, the two positions are not mutually exclusive. I don’t want the government regulating my sexual practices, or judging them.
24 DougD // Jan 21, 2009 at 8:44 pm
There appear to be two threads here one thread says homosexuality is not socially conservative, the GOP should be against it. The other thread says demographics are changing and alienating a growing demographic is bad tactics. The truth is, were discussing *the* civil rights issue of the next twenty years. It takes a while, but sooner or later Americans do get around to living their core principles: Americans dont discriminate. Do we really want to be on the wrong side of history for the next twenty years? Many socons didnt support integration of blacks into the military. They were wrong on that. Socons didnt generally support womens lib, as it quaintly used to be known? Wrong side of that one too. This issue is the next two decades womans lib and we dont want to shoot ourselves in the foot on this either. We must stick to fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, law and order, support for our armed forces, small (and non-intrusive!) government.
25 jackryan // Jan 21, 2009 at 8:48 pm
It is ok to live and let live. Changing the definition of marriage has farther reaching consequences. In Massachusetts, they are requiring Kindergartners to learn that “Tommy” has two daddys. Because the law was changed by a few judges there, your kindergartner has to learn that Tommy can have two daddys and it is ok. What if you prefer to broach that subject yourself (perhaps when they are a few years older), and teach them that even though Tommy has two daddy’s and we don’t agree with that choice of his daddies, we are to treat them with respect and Tommy should never be teased, and it is ok to be friends with Tommy. However, the State has decided at which age it will teach these things and how it will teach them and it will not even notify you as a parent what days it will be taught in case you have moral objections and would like your child excused that day. Changing the definition of marriage has consequences far beyond just allowing two people to committ to each other and visit eachother in the hospital if one is sick. No one is against that, but I don’t want my kindergartner to learn that men deciding to love eachother is a correct and moral choice.
26 jackryan // Jan 21, 2009 at 8:56 pm
As to the comments about James’s preferences and the New Republic being liberal, we all know that for the most part it is liberal, and James’s preferences have little relevancy. I am more interested in his arguments. I do always find liberals telling conservatives how to be more pallitable to the voters a little funny. I thought McCain was the best candidate. Don’t you remember all the liberals saying that if we didn’t elect McCain, we didn’t stand a chance? What happened? Truth is, liberal Republicans don’t do very well. The Mainstream press is always going to root for the more liberal candidate and make the more conservative one look bad, and turn the middle towards the Democrat, while the conservative base is not energized because their own nominee isn’t very exciting. I know ony a few Republicans that were truly excited about McCain. The rest were voting against Obama. That is a gloomy sign. Remember that election when Kerry lost. No one was excited about John Kerry, they were just voting against Bush. I am not worried about another four years of Carter (I mean Obama) policies. It took four years of seeing how bad liberalism fails before the country elected a true conservative to office. Go 2012!!
27 esurience // Jan 21, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Here’s an idea for a winning political strategy: How about just doing the right thing and actually leading people rather than following poll numbers. The Republican Party mind find that people’s attitudes on this issue change faster for the better if they would stop demagoguing about it.
But if the Republican Party does try to follow the polling numbers of today, as this article points out the poll numbers of tomorrow do not bode well for them. This survey ( http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/01/24/america/Helicopter-Parents-Glance.php ) shows that 63.5% of incoming college freshmen support same-sex marriage, despite that ideological identification is split equally between “liberal” and “conservative” (25% for each).
So go ahead and pat yourselves on the back for the victory of Prop8 in California. It passed by 52% in 2008, but a similar measure garnered 62% of the vote in 2000. Forward-thinking Republicans and conservatives know that the majority of their party is on the wrong side of history on this issue, and the sooner they make the change towards tolerance the better off we’ll be.
28 esurience // Jan 21, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Same-sex marriage isn’t a liberal vs conservative issue, it’s an issue of human dignity.
There’s nothing inherently conservative about opposing same-sex marriage aside from the tradition argument.
Marriage is a wonderful institution that embodies and promotes values that benefit society as a whole, such as monogamy, stability, and self-reliance (two people are better able to support each other than one person, and less needing of government assistance).
Conservatives should be working towards promoting marriage in order to create a better society. Instead they’ve taken it on themselves to fight against marriage, to divorce loving couples in California, and to prevent their union elsewhere.
29 Pincher Martin // Jan 21, 2009 at 10:44 pm
The arguments for gay marriage are fundamentally flawed. Marriage is not about love; it’s about children. It’s not about dignity; it’s about building a family. It’s not about marriage benefits and tax breaks; it’s about self-sacrifice for the next generation. The values that marriage promotes (stability and monogamy) are not good things, in and of themselves; they are good things precisely for the objectives that marriage exists for. If your wife is little more than a glorified girlfriend, who cares whether your relationship is stable and monogamous? Throw children in the mix, however, and the reason for stability and monogamy becomes obvious.
30 Pincher Martin // Jan 21, 2009 at 11:03 pm
As for the younger generation of voters being the vanguard which will lead gays into an era of new equality, don’t count on it. The younger voters (18-29) are precisely that group which is most likely to have no experience in marriage. As they get older, get married, and have children, their conception of what marriage is about will change dramatically — as will their opinions about the overwrought rhetoric (ME! ME! ME!) used by gay rights groups.
31 esurience // Jan 21, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Pincher Martin: Marriage is absolutely good for children. Same-sex couples can also have children, and according to the 2000 census, a quarter of them do. Isn’t it better for those children, and society at large, that their parents be able to get married and provide a stable household?
But just because marriage is good for children in no way makes children a requirement for marriage. Indeed, our laws have no such provision. It would be easy to outlaw marriage when two people are obviously passed the age of fertility, for exmaple, but most people would view that as ridiculous. Marriage provides tangible benefits for society even when it doesn’t produce children. If one person becomes sick or injured, the other person is there to provide care and pay the bills. Without that, we might see such people turning to the government for help (which means bigger government, more taxes — unconservative).
32 Pincher Martin // Jan 21, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Marriage is not a requirement for children, but that is only because it is the natural expectation of the custom (among heterosexuals). The last time I checked, between 85% and 90% of women had at least one child. A generation or two ago, that percentage was higher than 90%. So it was not necessary to make a law requiring fertility; it was just expected, and in the vast majority of marriages that expectation was fulfilled. Why should the government add regulatory costs to a custom which is mostly self-regulating?
33 Pincher Martin // Jan 21, 2009 at 11:25 pm
As for the other benefits of marriage, I disagree. Nowadays, if one spouse gets sick, the other is almost as likely to leave them on their hospital bed, a la Newt Gingrich, as to nurse their significant other through their trying period. Children in a marriage, however, do keep some spouses together for the sake of their kids. I see no evidence that the gay community looks at marriage as anything other than a prop for respect. In California, for example, gays have almost all the rights in their domestic partnerships as breeders have in marriage. So why are California gays protesting so much in the wake of their Prop 8 loss? Because they expected victory, and their loss was a sign that they had been disrespected. But they lost no tangible benefits on election night.
34 fatezoom // Jan 22, 2009 at 1:03 am
Has anyone taken a survey of the actual numbers? What percentage of the populace is gay? I suspect that it is a non-significant number. As for Gay Marriage, how about a simple biological test. Can you produce a child without assistance? If the answer is no then settle for a “civil union” and enjoy the fruits of your chosen lifestyle. I’ve always thought that conservatives were welcoming. We can agree to disagree about lifestyle but it seems pointless to argue on a subject that is simply a personal choice. Some would argue a biological imperative. So be it. Setting aside your sexual preference if your values are conservative then I think there must be a place in the tent for you.
35 esurience // Jan 22, 2009 at 1:38 am
fatezoom: As I referenced in another thread ( http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=900fd82b-2b71-4e89-b009-76d9ea155c3d ) self-identified gays make up about 4% of the electorate according to national exit polls. But that’s not the whole story of course, because there are plenty of Ted Haggards and Larry Craigs out there. Winning over the gay vote isn’t the point, however, as 27% of self-identified gays did vote for McCain in the last election (compared with other minority groups who vote in lockstep for Democrats, that’s a significant percentage). The point is the obvious trend towards tolerance in our culture will inevitably lead to people viewing Republican demagoguery about gays with suspicion, if not outright hostility. Without the rallying cry of the gay boogeyman, what will Republican party be left with? They can’t rally around fiscal sanity, because they’re fiscally insane. They can’t rally around competent government, because they’re incompetent. The question is what credentials should a conservative have in order to call themselves such? If being anti-gay is enough (and it seems to be the predominant issue for social “conservatives”), then everything else that conservatives stand for become diluted (they can be fiscally insane and still get elected). Is it really worth it?
36 DLJ // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:20 am
James, I appreciate your opinion but just so you know where I am coming from: I am an independent that firmly believes in the rule of law and States rights. I could care less about policy that is “going out of fashion”. What does fashion have to do with….anything important.
37 didgeri // Jan 22, 2009 at 8:17 am
I think the author’s argument is true but won’t change many minds – the most vociferous opponents of gay marriage are opposing it for religious reasons. If you think the Republicans should support gay marriage, you have to provide a biblical basis for that opinion, or explain how the Republicans can create a winning coalition without fundamentalist Christians. (disclosure: I’m a liberal lurker on this site, just trying to add to the conversation)
38 Adrian Butterworth // Jan 22, 2009 at 8:43 am
The obvious way out is of this mess is for the Republicans to support states’ rights to go their own way on social issues. If the republicans had stuck to this principle, most social and moral controversies could have been settled with considerably less conflict.
In any case, the gay issue was not nearly as important in alienating voters as was the GOP’s demented neocon warmongering. Its funny how Messrs Frum and Guliani try to avoid this obvious truth. It is their ideas which have damaged the GOP infinitely more than the party’s ‘homophobia’. Perhaps if they really cared about the future of the Republican party they would consider leaving it and retiring to a quiet life away from the political debate. Either that or they should admit they were wrong about everything and welcome Ron Paul into their ‘big-tent’.
39 dav26os7 // Jan 22, 2009 at 9:42 am
Fun academic meandering here, but the gay debate is the least of the problems. The current Republican brand is held by O’Reilly, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, Limbaugh….need I go on? The perceived brand values are: be divisive and hateful. Americans got tired of that rhetoric. That’s why McCain lost.
40 baronphoenix // Jan 22, 2009 at 9:49 am
“Never give up. Never, never, never, never give up.” (Winston Churchill) The fight is over when we give in. The battle is lost when we quit the field. Slavery was undone by those who stood to fight it (Republicans). Segregation was undone by those who kept fighting (black, white and others). Gay “rights,” abortion “rights,” and all the other idiocies that liberals have come up with will be victorious the day conservatives quit fighting.
“Personal liberty matched by personal accountability” and “True federalism held accountable by States rights” should be the rallying cry of the 21-Century conservative movement. Toss the current national leadership and those state leaders who follow them. Put the power back in the hands of the real power–the people.
By the way, I’ve heard that when Reagan was told his policies weren’t receiving widespread popular support, he responded that HE had not done HIS job in educating the people. Once again, the Great Communicator spoke wisdom.
41 Chekote // Jan 22, 2009 at 10:02 am
The social conservatives will not let go an inch on their issues. The view as standing up for God’s wishes and whenever people think they are doing God’s work, you can’t reason with them. Does not matter the religion. I am and fiscal conservative, defense hawk but socially liberal. There is no room for me in the Dem or Republican Parties. I think it is time to form a new party. A federalist party that will advocate a reduction or the size and scope of the federal government and leaves the social issues for each state to decide. It is time for a new political party in America. Let’s face it and start working on it.
42 Chekote // Jan 22, 2009 at 10:04 am
Most people want to be left alone. On the right you have people trying to run your bedroom. On the left you have people who want to run the rest of your life, ie. what car you can buy, how big your house should be, etc. I am sick of both. Leave me alone. This is why it is time for a new political party.
43 rustywheeler // Jan 22, 2009 at 10:58 am
senorlechero, your perspective is narrow and mean-spirited. Gay families do not always “go outside the ‘couple’ to create children.” I live in California. Our friends Ed and Brian (names changes here) have custody of Ed’s niece and nephew. Ed’s sister got knocked up twice by her loser boyfriend (who is now serving fifteen years on drug charges) and was then declared an unfit mother because she herself has drug problems. There are no grandparents on either side, and the father has no siblings. Care of these two kids fell to Ed, or the state. Ed stepped up, secured custody, and married his partner. They are dads now. They didn’t seek this out initially, but when circumstance conspired to create a need, they met it responsibly. Six years later, you would never know what those kids went through; they are THRIVING in a loving home, in a FAMILY. This is not a straw man, this is some people’s real life. Ed and Brian are no longer married, thanks to you and your kind.
44 MarkG555 // Jan 22, 2009 at 11:09 am
Ed Whelan says this post unfairly distorts his comments at the National Review symposium.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDhjZTVjOWI3ODY4NGJjY2YyNzk2M2U4MjZlMjMzMTA=
Does Mr. Kirchick propose to substantiate his claims, or perhaps tone them down?
45 HLMencken // Jan 22, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Homosexuality and in particular gay marriage is a “bloody shirt” for the far right wing to wave around when it needs money and/or a reliable cohort of dumb votes. If anyone actually wanted to deal with the issue rather than keep it around as a hot button, there is a simple solution, which is to privatize marriage.
The government should limit its role to recognizing civil unions, and leave marriage as a private matter. Now: How hard was that, anyway?
46 mrrightwing // Jan 22, 2009 at 12:57 pm
The law applies to each person equally. That is not discrimination.
Let proponents of gay marriage win the argument fairly; by persuading citizens to vote for gay marriage in referendum, or by persuading elected officials who are accountable to voters to vote for gay marriage.
If voters do make that choice I will support it.
What I object to is using the courts to overrule the will of the people.
47 HLMencken // Jan 22, 2009 at 1:23 pm
So, mrrightwing, you’re still up in arms over Marbury v Madison, are you?
48 Mike K // Jan 22, 2009 at 1:34 pm
If you are referring to the NRO post-election cruise with this statement:
“At a National Review post-election symposium seeking to answer the question, Whither Conservatism? social conservatives Maggie Gallagher, Jeffrey Bell and Ed Whelan all encouraged conservatives to stress gay issues even more in the future, and most everyone in the audience nodded in agreement.”
It didn’t happen. I was there. This sounds like a caricature and that is not helpful.
49 Pincher Martin // Jan 22, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Mencken, why should both long-standing custom and law be changed for a small percentage of screeching gay yahoos, most of whom aren’t interested in marriage anyway? And the libertarian approach of privatizing marriage is a childish ploy to change the subject, since privatization is never going to happen. Ever. Stop pretending there are simple, ready-made solutions.
50 BobN // Jan 22, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I am struck at how this conversation is all about winning and not about doing what is right.
“the most vociferous opponents of gay marriage are opposing it for religious reasons”
Really? As I see it, the most vociferous opponents of gay marriage benefit directly from the argument itself. Marie Gallagher, Jerry Falwell (RIP), etc., derive a good deal of their INCOME from this fight, not to mention POWER.
Now, why are those people your (conservatives’) leaders on this issue? We’ve gotten to the point in this country — thanks entirely to liberals and Democrats — that even gay Republicans can come out. Some of these guys (and they’re almost all guys) are respected for their conservative positions on other issues: defense, spending, etc. You’d think they’d walk the talk on social issues as well. Low and behold! They form partnerships, adopt children, and — where they can — get married (Rep. Drier notwithstanding). Surely, if there were a coherent conservative option for gay people that was different from the liberal one, these folks would exhibit it, no?
51 BobN // Jan 22, 2009 at 2:01 pm
“I don’t want my kindergartner to learn that men deciding to love eachother is a correct and moral choice” Why? If he’s going to grow up straight, why? If he’s going to grow up gay, why?
52 Chekote // Jan 22, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Reagan would not be able to make it through today’s GOP primaries. In 1978, he actively opposed the Briggs which would have banned gays and lesbians, and possibly anyone who supported gay rights, from working in California’s public schools.
53 roddyreta // Jan 22, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Reagan is almost a moderate republican by today’s standards. Remember, he appointed O’Connor to the court, over the objections of Jerry Falwell. He also favored the Brady law and the assault weapon ban.
When conservatives say “let’s go back to Reagan,” i wonder if they remember what he actually stood for.
54 senorlechero // Jan 22, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Rusty Wheeler…why do you resort to name calling? Basically you just proved yourself to be an ignorant bigot.
You proved my point. Your “friends Ed and Brian” who “have custody of Ed’s niece and nephew”, did not create those children within the “couple”, did they? Is that such a hard concept to grasp?
Can you comprehend what you read? I have my doubts. I never said your example of your friends raising children and calling themselves a “family” was a straw man. Since you are such a name calling bigot I wont bother clarifying my point to you.
Bigots like you amaze me with the way you degrade others. “Ed’s sister got knocked up twice by her loser boyfriend”……and you go on and on making up bogus points to bolster your viewpoint.
55 Pincher Martin // Jan 22, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Bob, clearly many people do not believe legalizing gay marriage is doing the right thing. And how do you know how much of their [Gallagher, Falwell, etc.] income is derived form this fight? And what does it matter?
56 senorlechero // Jan 22, 2009 at 2:48 pm
continued….Yet you cannot answer the fact that it is unnatural for two men to be married and raise children. People do unnatural things all the time….but that doesn’t mean it’s the best situation possible or even a situation that should be encouraged.
You also didn’t answer the comment that children deserve a mother and a father. Of course they don’t always have both, but why make it impossible for them by allowing and encouraging two men to be “dads” of a child or two women to be “moms”
The sort of ignorant arguments you make lead to things like this freak from the Oprah show who claims to be a “man” since she cut off her breasts and took hormones, married another woman and got pregnant (outside of marriage….again, I don’t expect you to comprehend that concept since your ignorance is thick), then claimed to be the first “pregnant man”. Nothing could be farther from the truth, yet folks like you lap it up like dogs lapping vomit.
57 Pincher Martin // Jan 22, 2009 at 2:56 pm
“Reagan is almost a moderate republican by today’s standards. Remember, he appointed O’Connor to the court, over the objections of Jerry Falwell.”
********************************************************************* And her ensuing career on the high court proved Falwell’s judgment was more correct than was Reagan’s.
58 BobN // Jan 22, 2009 at 3:10 pm
“Bob, clearly many people do not believe legalizing gay marriage is doing the right thing.” My point is that the GOP should articulate an alternative, preferably one that GAY MEMBERS of the GOP actually live by. Absent that, your party offers no rational solutions. “And how do you know how much of their [Gallagher, Falwell, etc.] income is derived form this fight? And what does it matter?” It matters because the leading voices on this issue MAKE THEIR LIVINGS from their positions. It’s like the pro-defense wing of the GOP were run by CEO’s of armament makers…
59 Pincher Martin // Jan 22, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Bob, the GOP does articulate an alternative. That alternative is, we are not the party of gay rights. If you feel strongly about gay rights, go sign up with the Democrats.
60 Pincher Martin // Jan 22, 2009 at 3:22 pm
“It matters because the leading voices on this issue MAKE THEIR LIVINGS from their positions. It’s like the pro-defense wing of the GOP were run by CEO’s of armament makers..”
************************************************************************** Again, you have not proved this. And, second, even if true, that only shows there is a market for those beliefs to be represented in the political arena — much like the gay rights advocates are paid for representing your beliefs.
61 buzzricksons // Jan 22, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Whelan responded on the Corner at NRO, splitting hairs trying to claims that culture-war “gay issues” is a substantively different construct than “defending traditional marriage” in the context of the first paragraph in Kirchick’s foregoing article.
That is a loser argument for Whelan, for while there may be some hypertechnical pedantic semantic transatlantic truth to the differentiation he’s trying to articulate, no one in the reading public will perceive it other than that comparatively smallish group that is either (a) already in agreement with his viewpoint and thus not open to Kirchick’s suggestion, or (b) deriving their income from this fight (to borrow a phrase).
If the Republicans are going to beat the drum of anti-gay-rights-ism from here to 2012, they will be soundly beaten again and again. It’s time to step back and handle gay rights issues (including “defending traditional marriage”, a most dorkish and wooden-sounding example of un-hip phrasing if ever there was one) the way the Democrats have learned to handle the gun issues, at least in the public discourse. To do otherwise is to remain locked inside an echo chamber.
62 buzzricksons // Jan 22, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Pincher’s post-BobN comment essentially telling him to screw off and join the Democrats exemplifies the thinking that will ensure a lengthy stay in the wilderness for the Republicans.
Is that the point of this site? I thought it was to discuss ideas and move the ball forward, not simply to tell off those with whom we have policy/vision differences. There’s plenty of other places online to go for that sort of satisfaction, after all.
63 Pincher Martin // Jan 22, 2009 at 3:28 pm
“If the Republicans are going to beat the drum of anti-gay-rights-ism from here to 2012, they will be soundly beaten again and again.”
************************************************************************* Keep dreaming, bub. The GOP might lose in 2010 and 2012, but if they do, it will have nothing to do with gay rights. You keep believing everyone is as obsessed with you as you are with yourself.
64 BobN // Jan 22, 2009 at 3:30 pm
“That alternative is, we are not the party of gay rights.” Again, saying what you are not is not articulating an alternative. You could try things like: we are the party of re-criminalization. THAT is articulating an alternative.
65 Pincher Martin // Jan 22, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Buzz is hallucinating if he thinks gay rights has anything to do with improving the prospects of the GOP’s immediate future. This site has been hijacked by a few gay rights advocates who would like everyone to care about their issues as much as they care about them. It would be far better for Republicans to focus on improving their economic and security issues, and to continue being the the party of social conservatives.
66 Pincher Martin // Jan 22, 2009 at 3:40 pm
“Again, saying what you are not is not articulating an alternative. You could try things like: we are the party of re-criminalization. THAT is articulating an alternative.” ************************************************************************* No, it isn’t. Our party likes the status quo. That is not “re-criminalization.” Nor is it support for an extended menu of gay rights. If you don’t like how we articulate this alternative, that is your problem and not the party’s. The GOP, after all, keeps winning on this issue — as gays in California discovered in November.
67 BobN // Jan 22, 2009 at 3:54 pm
“No, it isn’t. Our party likes the status quo.” So, what IS the status quo? And why — other than just being the status quo — is it good? What is GOOD about two men living their lives together and being kept from each other’s hospital rooms? What is GOOD about two adults raising the children of a previous marriage together with absolutely no legal connection to each other and with no legal connections between one of those adults and the children? I realize it’s awfully hard to answer any of these questions with a positive, conservative message. That should be a hint.
68 buzzricksons // Jan 22, 2009 at 3:55 pm
That’s my point, Pincher. You’re proving yourself unworthy of engagement with all the conclusion-jumping ad hominem nonsense. I live in the gayest neighborhood in L.A. with my wife and 3-year old daughter. It also happens to be the nicest ‘hood with the best walkability and restaurants, etc. that doesn’t require me to make 7 figures to afford it. I live among teh gheyz, and have seen enough of the (generally older) more settled couples, many with adopted kids, living as mellowly as anyone, to counteract the number of randy wild boys that are out living dangerously at the bars and night clubs around here to say that for the most part, as a demographic, the gay community probably isn’t unbridgeably different than the “hetero community”, or a college campus, or whatever. To me, the gay rights obsession — whether it’s the obsession by the left or by the right (in the form of “defending traditionalism”) — is a waste of resources because it’s not the game-changing issue.
I’m with you all the way that the way out of the current morass is to get a workable definition and program of ideas on economic and security issues. We’ve had that natural advantage slip from our side over the past few years, in large part because of incessant negativity on the war, etc. (and the irony of all the sudden pride and joy in patriotism by those naysayers of yesterday is not lost on me).
69 buzzricksons // Jan 22, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Part of the reason that natural advantage has slipped is also because the Democrats have found candidates to field that have strong natsec credentials but also either don’t dwell on, or are moderate/tolerant of, those “alternative lifestyle” issues. I’m thinking of Webb, for instance. Guys like that allow the Democrats to stalemate the Republican natsec advantage, which turns the attention to the age-old “moderate-tolerant” versus “luddite-intolerant” social issues debate.
We need to de-emphasize the social issues that don’t play well for Republicans, the same way that Democrats have successfully taken the gun issue off the table (at least during election cycles). It didn’t work for them so they found a way to reduce attention paid to it. We should do the same on gay rights, etc. Looking at the Obama team’s newfound gun regulation zeal, it’s not like they’ve actually abandoned their positions — it’s just that they didn’t make those unpopular positions the hills they chose to die on during the election.
I always thought Bush’s efforts to defuse the abortion issue were well-executed, although the left never took seriously anything he said. Similarly, finding a language to express an understanding that there are “regular workaday folks” among the gay community too should be possible without capitulating on the policy issues.
70 buzzricksons // Jan 22, 2009 at 3:59 pm
There’s nothing un-conservative about trying to make friends and build bridges, is there? It’s not like those folks don’t face the same high-tax/low-services government issues, fear of the consequences of slackened national defenses, etc.
I’ve been very disappointed to see the extent to which Gramm was right, over the last several years. The electorate appears to have devolved into a bunch of babies for whom, if you can’t agree on everything, you can’t agree on anything. That is immature, stupid and very dangerous for our democracy.
71 BobN // Jan 22, 2009 at 4:00 pm
“The GOP, after all, keeps winning on this issue — as gays in California discovered in November.” Gays in California discovered several things in November. Primary among them is that promoting fear and bigotry in the name of protecting the children is still a potent tool. Mind you, a shameful tool, but useful none the less.
72 buzzricksons // Jan 22, 2009 at 4:04 pm
The smarter watchers of Prop 8 discovered that with 58% this time around, they got less of a percentage than last time or the time before that. Every time there’s a vote on these issues, the return diminishes. Would be nice for our leaders in the stupid party to get in front of an issue for once rather than getting run over by it.
73 Scott in Los Angeles // Jan 22, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Testing….testing. I’ve had problems posting on a different thread, so I’m trying this one.
74 Pincher Martin // Jan 22, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Bob, you have to be told what the status quo is? The current position of most in the GOP ranges from benign neglect (McCain) to defensive counter-attacks on the gay proponents of the culture war — who, after all, are the ones trying to change the status quo. That’s been a very successful strategy for the party. There is no reason to change it. The GOP’s current problems simply have nothing to do with gay rights.
75 Pincher Martin // Jan 22, 2009 at 5:01 pm
“What is GOOD about two men living their lives together and being kept from each other’s hospital rooms? What is GOOD about two adults raising the children of a previous marriage together with absolutely no legal connection to each other and with no legal connections between one of those adults and the children? I realize it’s awfully hard to answer any of these questions with a positive, conservative message. That should be a hint.”
********************************************************************** There’s nothing conservative about changing the nature of marriage in order to ingratiate your party to a small minority whose commonality is based on nothing more than their sexual predilection. Most gays aren’t interested in raising families. Most heterosexuals are. And most gay rights issues — like visitation rights — are easily solved without wholesale changes to marriage.
76 Pincher Martin // Jan 22, 2009 at 5:07 pm
“There’s nothing un-conservative about trying to make friends and build bridges, is there?”
*************************************************************************
In politics, you must make sure that the bridges you build are larger than the bridges you burn. Social conservatives are the base of the GOP. If they aren’t happy with the positions the party takes, then the party will suffer. Gays who are adamant about extending the reach of gay rights are not a natural fit with the party, nor are they are numerous enough to care about.
77 Pincher Martin // Jan 22, 2009 at 5:12 pm
“Gays in California discovered several things in November. Primary among them is that promoting fear and bigotry in the name of protecting the children is still a potent tool. Mind you, a shameful tool, but useful none the less.”
*************************************************************************
What was shameful was the overwrought reaction of gays in the aftermath of the election. Slandering Mormons; tossing racist insults at Blacks and Hispanics; and targeting old ladies for harassment. And all over an issue which didn’t diminish their rights in the slightest. It was both disgusting and shameful.
78 roninjoey // Jan 22, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Pincher, you sound like such an alarmist! The angry and totally understandable reaction of the gay community to having a given right revoked pales in comparison to the crimes that have been committed against GLBTs in this country, that continue to be committed all the time. That the gay community has endured and we continue to hold our heads high is a testament to our strength, and why we will ultimately win this battle.
Besides, when did it become okay to leave the rights of minorities up to the vote of the masses? If this were always the case, women would not be able to vote, segregation would still exist, etc. Remember that there was a time when it was illegal for black and white people to get married as well because it defied “traditional conservative values”. But history is an uphill climb. You can stand in it’s way but it just keeps going on.
79 Pincher Martin // Jan 22, 2009 at 5:40 pm
“That the gay community has endured and we continue to hold our heads high is a testament to our strength, and why we will ultimately win this battle.”
************************************************************************* I thought I could hear a tiny violin in the background when I read your post.
80 buzzricksons // Jan 22, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Pincher needs to see what goes on at sites like gaypatriot.net, just to get a glimpse of what’s going on out there. I think the point’s been all but hammered into granite here that the best strategy is one where the party engages anyone and everyone on issues that affect everyone. Frankly, the churchgoing couple from the quiet suburb might find it mildly uncomfortable sitting around a table with some gay couple (and vice versa, fwiw), but if the discussion is about how to tackle issues like economics, taxation, educational opportunity, government spending, etc., I don’t think either couple will really mind that much, especially if what they agree on is substantially important enough to make what they disagree on something they can rather agree to tolerate about one another. This should be the goal of any party that fancies itself inclusive, “big tent”, whatever. The idea that, instead, we should emphasize that which divides us is dumb and will prove a loser.
81 Pincher Martin // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Buzz, a political party cannot be all things to all people. It must build majority coalitions which will 1) cohere and thereby 2) win. Your happy scenario whereby gay and straight couples sit around a table and talk about all the issues they have in common is fantasy. The two pairs will lose each other as soon as the discussion turns to children, schools, and church. A big tent is big, but it does not cover everyone. Some people will be left outside.
82 roninjoey // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:11 pm
I’m afraid I couldn’t hear the tiny violins because I was too busy being subjected to the noisy din of your overheated rhetoric. But keep it up!
83 buzzricksons // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:15 pm
What is the content of the discussion in a political campaign that turns to “church”? I’d like to know the ground such discussion would or should cover, aside from acknowledging the value of the tax exempt status of houses of worship. Other than that, I don’t see the reason to get into it over religious issues. After all, Bush went deep after the Muslim vote in 2000, even during the primaries. Beyond expressing respect for religion’s place in society generally, I don’t think that a political party or candidate really needs to nor should he/she say any more than that. If that makes me a liberal in anything but the classical American sense (i.e., not the Michael Dukakis sense), then you’re kidding yourself.
84 buzzricksons // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Moreover, this idea that all the gay folks are somehow “godless” or shunning their churches is preposterous. You reveal the shallowness of your experience by suggesting that the mention of church, schools and children would change the gay smiles to frowns around the hypothetical townhall/caucus meeting table.
85 buzzricksons // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Stop loafin’, Pincher! Where’s the response?
86 Pincher Martin // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Buzz, many religious people like to talk about their values, which is why even Obama and Hillary constantly made reference to their beliefs on the campaign trail. Sit two couples (one gay and one straight) and it will come up. To pretend otherwise is to show how naive you are about the way most people think about politics.
87 roninjoey // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:24 pm
You sound pretty naive if you think gay couples can’t be as American as apple pie when it comes to heartland values and religion. Besides, I know plenty of straight people who aren’t scared of gay people at all. What is this, the 80s?
88 Pincher Martin // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Roninjoey, http://www.littlehandsmusic.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/Becker_Violin.jpg
Play it, my darling.
89 Pincher Martin // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:27 pm
“Moreover, this idea that all the gay folks are somehow “godless” or shunning their churches is preposterous. You reveal the shallowness of your experience by suggesting that the mention of church, schools and children would change the gay smiles to frowns around the hypothetical townhall/caucus meeting table.”
*************************************************************************
Please. This is a serious conversation. The idea that gay couples are just like straight couples — only more oppressed — just isn’t supported by the data. They are less likely to be religious, less likely to have children, less likely to look at marriage as desirable or ideal arrangement. It just goes on and on and on.
90 buzzricksons // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Sure, but you think human values are only about who’s boffing who? In my experience, life’s a much richer pageant than that. Believe me, no naivete here, hombre. I found the Democrats’ constant pounding on their religiosity in the last election cycle to be pathetic and it rang very phoney to me. Imagine my surprise at how many of the otherwise So.Con religious people ate that stuff up and had their views of the Hillary/Obama/etc. Democrat/left candidates softened. Now tell me, who’s naive? It ain’t me, and it doesn’t sound like you are, either. Voters are clearly susceptible to believe whatever positioning that parties-candidates — or their opponents — put out there. Another cycle or two of being defined as the party of intolerance will spell the end of the GOP as it becomes two: the (social) conservatives and the (fiscal-con/social-whatev) third party. One may grow with competitive ideas, while the other will likely shrink by changing demography. Coalitions don’t last forever, though; maybe the overt religiosity and the Democrats’ strident efforts to penetrate the west and south spell a near-future sea change in the coalitional makeup of the two parties?
91 buzzricksons // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Pincher is looking at “the data” while the rest of us are out living in America.
The gay folks I know don’t act or feel oppressed; is that one of the assumptions in your “data”?
92 Pincher Martin // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:39 pm
“Pincher is looking at “the data” while the rest of us are out living in America. The gay folks I know don’t act or feel oppressed; is that one of the assumptions in your “data”?”
************************************************************************* Buzz, do you need to borrow Joey’s violin? I’m sure he can loan it to you when he gets done with his sad ballad. And you’re not living in America; you’re living in L.A. I’m living in America, where the votes constantly go against your point of view on this issue.
93 buzzricksons // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Isn’t “conservatism” supposed to be a “live and let live” – “keep the government out of our lives as much as possible” type of thing? Isn’t that what we’re supposed to be conserving about the American experience? If so, how does getting on a high horse to have the government come and interfere with what someone else is doing at no cost or injury to oneself or one’s family figure into that equation?
94 Pincher Martin // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:43 pm
“Isn’t “conservatism” supposed to be a “live and let live” – “keep the government out of our lives as much as possible” type of thing?”
************************************************************************* You’re mistaking libertarianism for conservatism. Modern American conservatism is about nationalism, strong social values, and small government.
95 buzzricksons // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Pincher “Loaves and Fishes” Martin: Kultur Warrior. I admire your steadfastness, hombre. I travel the interior quite a bit by car myself, and always enjoy the people I meet there (I’m a midwesterner myself). With no intention of offense or condescension, I will say that your position is consistent, but is one where the ground is slumping out from under you, even in your own “not-on-the-coasts” region. There’s always going to be very red, and very blue places. What struck me over Labor Day weekend was finding fairly mellow attitudes about much of this stuff: the people out there don’t care as much as the politicians want them to about this culture war business. That’s why the parties always have to drum it up — it’s something that appears to distinguish two pork-addicted parties, divides the electorate against one another so they don’t turn on their leaders, and is a surefire moneyraiser for party organizations. That does not mean that it is right, and certainly does not mean it is a reflection of how people feel if left to their own experience and judgment on these issues. It should be something we are trying to get away from – at least in appearance if nothing else (consider how effective the other side has been (2008) and will be in doing so, which will only make the contrast that much greater). The game has already changed; how does the GOP get into the new game while remaining true to its principles is the question.
96 Pincher Martin // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:58 pm
“With no intention of offense or condescension, I will say that your position is consistent, but is one where the ground is slumping out from under you, even in your own “not-on-the-coasts” region.”
*************************************************************************
So you say, but I’m guessing you don’t mix nearly as well as you think you do. Every time we hold an election on these issues, the conservative side wins. In the last election, the blue states of California and Florida both voted against gay marriage. Even among whites in California, Prop 8 lost by just 49-51 — which means the proposition was more popular among the state’s white voters than was McCain. Florida went more than sixty percent in favor of changing the state’s constitution. Arizona also voted for marriage to be between a man and a woman. And Arkansas voted to ban adoptions by gays. It is only when gay rights advocates appeal to the courts that they have a chance on this issue because they clearly can’t win an election on it.
97 BobN // Jan 22, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Pincher: What is the status quo of the GOP vis-a-vis gay rights? You don’t know, apparently, since you seem to support civil unions. That would put you in a tiny minority in the GOP. My point continues to be that the GOP needs to articulate a position about what gay people SHOULD do. I keep asking you what that policy might be and all you do is tell me what we shouldn’t do. And, as for this “And all over an issue which didn’t diminish their rights in the slightest.” I lost the right to marry my partner. We don’t meet the cohabitation requirement of Domestic Partnership right now. Been together for 28 years. Work keeps us in different cities sometimes. Straight folks in the same situation? No problemo.
98 Pincher Martin // Jan 22, 2009 at 8:22 pm
“What is the status quo of the GOP vis-a-vis gay rights? You don’t know, apparently, since you seem to support civil unions. That would put you in a tiny minority in the GOP. ”
*************************************************************************
I support a federalist approach to these issues. If gays can convince a state’s voters that they deserve marriage, domestic partnerships, or whatever, then so be it. If not, then not. And the courts should stay out of it. Since so many of you are convinced of the ultimate victory of your views, I don’t see why that should be too heavy a cross to bear. And telling you what we shouldn’t do *is* articulating a policy.
99 Pincher Martin // Jan 22, 2009 at 8:26 pm
“I lost the right to marry my partner. We don’t meet the cohabitation requirement of Domestic Partnership right now. Been together for 28 years. Work keeps us in different cities sometimes. Straight folks in the same situation? No problemo.”
************************************************************************* Bob, you are not going to get any sympathy from me. I’m married to an immigrant. We have to jump through hoops that other straight people don’t have to jump through. Life isn’t fair sometimes. Deal with it. The rules and customs often have their reasons for being, even if you don’t agree with them. I’m tired of gay people thinking that marriage is all about them.
100 BobN // Jan 22, 2009 at 8:54 pm
“Bob, you are not going to get any sympathy from me.” Not looking for sympathy. Just honesty. You said we lost nothing.
101 BobN // Jan 22, 2009 at 8:55 pm
“I’m tired of gay people thinking that marriage is all about them.” I’m tired of straight people thinking that marriage is all about them.
102 denyvctor // Nov 15, 2009 at 6:10 am
I think we need to stop pointing fingers that create more divisiveness amongst disenfranchised communities.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Premium-White-Pro-Review—Does-Free-Trial-Really-Work?&id=3205919
You must log in to post a comment.