A conservative argument for same sex marriage

Comments

1. Hawyer on Jun 20, 2008 6:28:24 PM:

   What a refreshing editorial. His arguments are intriguingly similar to Jonathan Rauch's in Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America.

   One wonders if the writer actually read Jonathan's book!

1. Tim C on Jun 20, 2008 6:38:06 PM:

   Mein Gott. An enlightened man. In semi-rural Georgia, no less. He'll soon be eaten alive by those he thought were his friends. Of course they have the God-given right to use the power of the State against those with whom they disagree.

1. Tim on Jun 21, 2008 1:17:11 PM:

   it's the same argument that i made to my mom, that it would be more inclusive and better for society regardless of your religious beliefs. But I've beat this horse to death over at the malcontent and have no intention of doing another 200 posts of NDT bitching about why he won't marry his butt buddy.

1. Geena on Jun 21, 2008 3:23:05 PM:

   Jonathan Rauch's has a column in today's Wall Street Journal.
   Gay Marriage Is Good for America

   Makes the case without the following from the other column:
   "What about the extremes of the gay and lesbian lifestyle,
   in-your-face promiscuity, unsavory public displays of drag
   queens and preying on the young and vulnerable?

1. Charlie on Jun 21, 2008 4:38:34 PM:

   I'm with Geena. While I think the article was unquestionably a huge step in the right direction, did the author have to bludgeon us to bloody quivering pulps with his personal opinion on homosexuality? I suppose he wanted to strengthen his argument by demonstrating he's not one of us, doesn't like us, thinks we're gross, doesn't want us near him, etc., ad nauseum.

   I look forward to the day that this sort of bigotry is sneered at... instead of applauded, as we've been forced to do in this instance.

1. Hawyer on Jun 21, 2008 11:23:01 PM:

   RE / Charlie on Jun 21, 2008 4:38:34 PM:

   [..... did the author have to bludgeon us to bloody quivering pulps with his personal opinion on homosexuality? I suppose he wanted to strengthen his argument by demonstrating he's not one of us, doesn't like us, thinks we're gross, doesn't want us near him, etc., ad nauseum .....]

   Charlie ... of course you're right, but I'm perfectly delighted to cede him all of that ignorant and inflammatory ideology in exchange for an agreement - however begrudgingly - to give me the same set of public laws to work with. Let them all battle it out in their own churches.

1. Scott on Jun 22, 2008 1:30:26 PM:

   Do you have any self-respect? The writer said in various ways he doesn't like gay people. I agree with him that people's beliefs shouldn't interfere with the lives of others. That doesn't make him a saint. Terry still holds prejudical views of gay people.

1. Charles J. Mueller on Jun 22, 2008 10:59:21 PM:

   Scott, I didn't hear him say that he did not like gay people. What I did hear him say what that he was uncomfortable with what they do...that it made him 'squirm', if I recall his comments correctly.

   A friend to whom I forwarded the article to made the comment that the writer was 'tolerantly intolerant', which was a fair assessment.

   I can handle that someone might feel uncomfortable with the idea of two men or two women kissing, etc., but I respect him more for being honest about his being uncomfortable with it right up front instead of making nicey nice to our faces and then stabbing us in the back back any many Fundies and Christians do. He came out in defense of the GLBT community and supported the rights currently being denied us.

   From a personal perspective, I am not concerned about how he feels about my sexual proclivities or whether or not he approves of them. What I am concerned with, and applaud this man for, is being able to separate his emotions and gut level responses from his sense of what is fair and right.

   In time, perhaps, when he has witnessed more and more same-sex couples displaying affection for each other, it's just possible that he may become more comfortable and at ease about the whole thing when it is no longer an issue, just like interracial marriage.

   The bottom line is, he cast his 'aye' vote in our favor and for that, we should be appreciative.

1. Charles J. Mueller on Jun 22, 2008 11:00:44 PM:

   Scott, I didn't hear him say that he did not like gay people. What I did hear him say what that he was uncomfortable with what they do...that it made him 'squirm', if I recall his comments correctly.

   A friend to whom I forwarded the article to made the comment that the writer was 'tolerantly intolerant', which was a fair assessment.

   I can handle that someone might feel uncomfortable with the idea of two men or two women kissing, etc., but I respect him more for being honest about his being uncomfortable with it right up front instead of making nicey nice to our faces and then stabbing us in the back back any many Fundies and Christians do. He came out in defense of the GLBT community and supported the rights currently being denied us.

   From a personal perspective, I am not concerned about how he feels about my sexual proclivities or whether or not he approves of them. What I am concerned with, and applaud this man for, is being able to separate his emotions and gut level responses from his sense of what is fair and right.

   In time, perhaps, when he has witnessed more and more same-sex couples displaying affection for each other, it's just possible that he may become more comfortable and at ease about the whole thing when it is no longer an issue, just like interracial marriage.

   The bottom line is, he cast his 'aye' vote in our favor and for that, we should be appreciative.

1. Lucrece on Jun 23, 2008 8:04:36 PM:

   Charles, I'm pretty sure he wasn't referring to the unease. He was referring to the author's mention of "vulnerable youth", and how he would have to explain to his son why two men might be holding hands or kissing. It buys into the whole observational learning garbage about kids seeing gay people interact.

1. Charlie on Jun 23, 2008 11:28:37 PM:

   I guess we can all agree that the author of the piece is not someone we want to know (as he's made it clear he doesn't want to know us), but I think that's beside the point.

   What's distressing about the article is his heavy handed reiteration of his distaste for gays (gosh, we GET it, already! Consider yourself uninvited to my barbecue), and his unnecessary jabs at some of our stereotypes, such as the preying on vulnerable youth, excessive promiscuity, etc.

   What's encouraging about the piece is that he wrote it at all. Right now there's still a distressing percentage of liberals/democrats who cling to the notion that it's okay to deny us marriage rights, so for a conservative to step up and say the opposite is quite encouraging. It says a lot about where we are and how far we've come. His argument is essentially the same as the CA Supreme Court's recent argument, and they were conservatives as well. If conservatives start to see past their own personal bias against us and look at the issue more abstractly, they'll fall in line with this guy's thinking, and this whole debate will all be a thing of the past.

   Tangentially, I'll throw in how disappointed I am by Obama's wish-washy stance on this. Isn't he the product of an inter-racial marriage? How can a man as intelligent as he is, coming from his background, hear the arguments made for gay marriage in CA and not see the parallel? Sigh.

1. Andoni on Jun 24, 2008 7:26:14 AM:

   I guess a loose parallel here is when the ACLU defends someone's or an organization's First Amendment rights. Take the infamous Skokie case. We didn't agree with the message the group was delivering, but defended the fact that they had the same rights to march there as any other group, no matter how repugnant we or others found the Nazi message to be. Rights were rights, no matter the negative emotions others experience. In defending their rights we explicitly stated that we found much of what they did to be repugnant.

   (Please note I am not equating gays kissing to the Nazis.)

1. Strict Scrutiny on Jun 24, 2008 10:31:22 AM:

   Charlie summed it up pretty well for me. I appreciate the author's overall message, but his derogatory remarks about gay people were completely unnecessary.

   It's obvious to me that Obama does not support same-sex marriage because it's political poison. He knows full well that there are numerous parallels between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage, but he refuses to say that because it'll kill his viability as a candidate among socially conservative voters.

   His failure to show leadership on this issue is unfortunate, but he's still better than McCain.

1. Charlie on Jun 24, 2008 5:50:34 PM:

   Strict - Ultimately I agree. I'd vote for a pitcher of tepid urine before I'd vote for McCain. I'm reservedly hopeful that Obama will make gestures for us once he's in office.

   And a theme I keep returning to -- I look forward to the day when we aren't political poison, and a writer like Terry Garlock would be mocked, if not outright punished, for publicly espousing his toxic opinions about a minority group, the same way Don Imus keeps getting himself in trouble for making racial comments. That day is not so far away, I hope.