On gay marriage, Republicans dig themselves deeper hole

On gay marriage, Republicans dig themselves deeper hole (via NewsWorks)

National Interest June 27, 2013 By Dick Polman   It was fascinating yesterday, in the wake of the high court’s historic gay marriage rulings, to see so many furious Republicans chewing the carpet. Apparently they didn’t heed the dire warnings – from…



Author: Guest Voice

Share This Post On

12 Comments

  1. “Republican politicians are free to claim that they’re channeling God when they rail against the rulings. But when they try to turn our democracy into a theocracy, they go too far.”

    This is exactly the point—the government itself does not deny those in straight relationships the right to marry–they never will! The only inequity here, is the systematic denial of a large group of people, who also want to make their unions sacred through having a church wedding and to feel that they also should be considered as equal citizens.

    The religious right apparently thinks that to allow the unthinkable–sanctioning gay marriages—cheapens the value of their own hetero traditions. However nothing is objectively valid in that claim. Isn’t the real value of a marriage in the minds of the couple who marries. And how can that subjective validity lose its value if someone else wants the same consideration for themselves and those they love?

    It is easy to justify political actions by using one’s beliefs in a particular faith–Obviously the Taliban does so constantly. Our own Bible is also full of moral imperatives that don’t hold great importance to those of us who read it today. In some places it is incredibly beautiful and seeks to convey the message of love that is at the heart of all great faiths–in others (such as in Exodus) it condemns to death, anyone who works on the sabbath. But how many of us today feel we are breaking a moral commandment when we mow the lawn on Sunday?–let alone deserve a death sentence for doing so?

    Its time we faced the truth—hatred and discrimination against gays,has happened without good reason for thousands of years. Obviously because the greater majority of people who have clear heterosexual desires, still consider it as some kind of twisted and perverse lifestyle. But social scientists today testify that studies have proven that the children raised by gay parents are usually loved and cared for just as much as any hetero couple who might provide their children with love. And, since gay members are also present in a large part of the animal kingdom–being homosexual,then, is also a part of nature.

    Gay people love as sincerely, and as much as anyone else. When they are denied a sacred ceremony to express that love and commitment, imagine how that denial hurts THEIR feelings, and violates THEIR views about what is morally right!

    Moral views from many walks of human life are considered just as sacred as any other—we don’t deny Muslims, or Buddhists the right to marry in the United States? And any government theocracy is usually prone to force its own beliefs on others. So, Let’s not let that happen in America since, those who object, are doing so out of their own feelings of morality, but are not really being hurt.

    Morality is well and good, but we can’t legislate according to our hurt feelings. You can also bet no reverse intolerance since forcing any church to marry gays, is also not going to happen—simply because it would violate the wall between church and state.

    As the law now stands, the matter of gay marriage is left up to the States, and the churches in them, that are willing to perform gay ceremonies. The Federal Government itself has not banned gay marriages or straight ones. Nor has it forced any State to comply with either—they have only left the matter up to the citizens of any given state.

  2. If the GOP were smart, a big IF, they can thread this needle and come out without pissing off their conservative base AND remove from the future the things they need to do that piss off the moderates. That is to allow gay marriage to pass into mainstream law. They can rail against it for now, but then let it pass into the realm of law and they can say they did their best, but its law now, lets move onto other issues. This removes it from the equation in future elections, removes a big sticking point with moderates, and the social conservative while hating will just have to admit its not something they can undo so will have to focus on other issues in future elections. Like passing laws allowing us to gun down any brown person with 1 mile of our border with Mexico, banishing evolution from the classroom, stopping all research into alternative energy sources or stem cell cures, or some other such nonsense their base needs to keep them happy.

  3. The reason they won’t Slamfu is that they are in the grips of their extremist base, logic and reason doesn’t work with these people. When you are a true believer in something you can’t be swayed. The fact that these people are becoming a smaller minority by the day doesn’t matter to them. They are true dead enders with no place to go but unwilling to compromise.

  4. My favorite line of thinking from the social conservatives as noted above is that unless they are allowed to oppress others with their beliefs, then they themselves are somehow being oppressed. It is just an amazing logical disconnect and seems to be so widespread with those folks. The idea of just no one being oppressed, and everyone being free to do what they want as a matter of law, just kills them.

  5. I’ve come to the conclusion that at least a reasonable portion of the anti equality populace is just plain ignorant to the fact that there is a difference between religious marriage and civil marriage. The whole bit where you stand at the front of a house of worship and talk with the clergy member of your choice and promise to God and the congregation that you will abide by that religion’s rules of marriage? That part is religious marriage. The part afterwards where you, your spouse, your priest and your best man all sign that piece of paper with your state’s seal on it? That was the civil marriage. They mean different things. The fact that the priest can be the person to act as authority and then certifies that both gave their consent to be part of the marriage may be what causes this confusion. Your God, your church, your priest, your religious beliefs, your congregation — that’s yours and you can keep it for whomever you want. The Catholic church can and does absolutely refuse to marry non-Catholics, non-virgins, people who have been divorced, etc. Of course they can refuse to marry two people of the same gender.

    What is not allowed is for the state to refuse the civil part — the paper signing.

  6. From what I’ve read on various comments sections I do believe your right. Although I just chalked that up to comments sections drawing the most ignorant people on average and not representative of the majority of social conservatives. But then again, the number of people who hate Obamacare because they think its a total govt takeover of healthcare is pretty staggering, so maybe it is quite a lot on this issue too. Someone should do a poll.

  7. I’ve come to the conclusion that at least a reasonable portion of the anti equality populace is just plain ignorant to the fact that there is a difference between religious marriage and civil marriage.

    Bingo.

    As far as government should be concerned, marriage is nothing more than a contract between two consenting adults that affords certain rights & priviledges. Nothing more, end of story.

    What your beliefs, religious or otherwise, make of it is a separate and distinct thing.

    One problem that both parties have, but in different directions, is this belief that the federal government should actually have power over our lives. NO! This is a bogus, bogus notion.

    The government should not be our guidepost for anything, moral or otherwise. The government should only be doing the following:

    1) establishing legal framework for resolving conflicts, keeping the peace, providing trust in marketplaces, ensuring fundamental rights are honored, etc.

    2) funding & managing large activities that cannot, or should not, be funded or managed by individuals or businesses. This includes national defense, infrastructure activities like road construction, and social safety nets.

    That’s it! No moral judgements, no solving of every problem everywhere, nothing.

    Neither party gets this. The Dems look to it as an bottomless well of solutions for everything in the world, and the GOP look to it as a stern father figure who must keep everyone in line. Both are dead wrong.

  8. So, Barky, I would guess from your post that you’re among the camp who would have government “out of the marriage business”? Is that just the federal government, or should that include state and local governments too?

    I would say that a large number of the people you think “don’t get this” do understand the arguments surrounding what you’re saying, but just disagree that you’ve come to the right conclusion.

  9. Or perhaps you mean for marriage to fall under your category 1, which could cover just about everything…

  10. roro…the Republicans don’t SEE any distinction between the church and the state, that is the entire problem with this issue. Ironically, they call for smaller government involvement, when it suits them of course.

    This issue as well as abortion have the same roots strangling their brains. Religion. Again, Ironic how religion doesn’t enter into their decisions to cut food for needy families, or social programs which aid the elderly and infirm.

    I think Hypocrite is the word I am looking for.

  11. Roro, I thought I was clear: IMO the only role ANY government has over marriage is a) ensuring it is consenting adults and b) providing the legal framework.

    That’s it.

  12. Barky, the reason same-sex marriages started occurring I. California a few years ago is because it was determined that neither state law or the CA constitution prohibited it. There was no distinction between gay and straight marriage. Then the conservatives wanted to amend things and make marriage between a man and a woman.

    Oftentimes Dems pass laws to protect minorities from being discriminated against by conservatives who want to force their beliefs on others and make others into someone they are not. If the Republicans weren’t so hellbent on passing laws which discriminate against fellow citizens, promote injustice and hatred, the Dems would not need to pass laws which protect those rights of every American.

Submit a Comment