I also enjoyed David French’s post, but I think it amounts to an attempt to puzzle out why young conservatives are more troubled by the fact that millions of human beings have been killed than by the fact that a few hundred human beings have gotten married. Perhaps it’s not that difficult to understand? I happen to be strongly anti-abortion and pro-gay marriage, and I’m of course heartened to see that the young people incline to my way of thinking (I have a lifelong tendency toward taking unpopular views — e.g., being a right-wing Reaganite in the mid-70s — and I’m grateful for support whenever I can get it!); but surely even people who agree with David’s position on both of these issues would recognize that abortion is more important, by many orders of magnitude? I intend this not merely as a rhetorical question, by the way. Let me phrase it as follows: Do some people make the case that the undermining of social cohesion by the redefinition of “marriage” poses a threat of comparable gravity to the undermining of the right to life by the redefinition of “person”?
Who said gay marriage is more important than abortion? The point is that both are social issues on which social conservatives need to take a stand. Some focus on abortion, some focus on marriage. The ones who focus on marriage may be well-served to expand beyond just opposing SSM to supporting marriage in general.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSure, we'll agree to legalize gay marriage in exchange for outlawing abortion.
Is that an option?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'll never understand this either. Abortion is literally a life and death issue for millions of voiceless human beings. Future generations must be alive before they can have the chance to be offended by gay marriage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs your final sentence the equivilant of posing the question: "So...have you stopped beating your wife?"
The rhetorical trick in your question is to establish moral deficiency in the consideration of the former being not just more important or even equivilant...instead the default proposition is that it is an order of magnitude less important...thus diminished and seemingly inconsequential (insert your favorite cause: littering, petty crime, jaywalking, etc...).
Comparative gravity...lesser of two evils...etc..etc...
There is a certain amount of smugness that shouts through your "...not merely a rhetorical question,..." by the way.
Are we going to rank views along a Lettermen's top 10 approach?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's not so much a matter of relative importance as a matter of relative redressability. In the medium term, there is no way the U.S. Supreme Court will overrule Roe v. Wade. In the medium term, there is a substantial possibility that the courts will uphold Proposition 8 and DOMA, putting the same-sex marriage issue squarely within the political process. Therefore, activists might well justifiably concentrate on issues where their advocacy makes a difference.
Mark Regan
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnchorage, Alaska
Yes, sir, they do.
What good is it to have our principles and our ideals of a truly civil society if our society's civil institutions breed incivility?
So, you can save all the babies you want, but don't beat your chest too hard if they are consigned to live in a society that breeds poor socialization borne of unnatural pairings.
The resultant chaos from the redefinition of marriage has the real potential to be as harmful as if the eco nazis remade the climate to be to their liking. God only knows how much dangerous unintended consequence would flow from such social engineering.
So, some of us are committed to seeing the life project all the way through. Not only do we want every conceived child to have every opportunity to experience life outside the womb, but we'd like them to have the most civil society possible in which to enjoy that life.
Or, alternatively, many of us see the worming of "gay rights" into our legal fabric as the first step to a carte blanche of legal rights for incest, bigamy, polygamy and pedophilia. Actually, there is literally no distinction at all between the legal arguments made by gay rights activists to those made by activists for the legalization of the pathologies listed above.
In fact, in states throughout the Union, those very legal arguments are being made right now in pending cases, and any presiding judge who would reject them in those contexts, but accept them in the context of gay rights, is merely making moral judgments about what is socially acceptable.
The legal arguments in favor of civil rights for people practicing a lifestyle dangerously flings open a legal door to a whole host of sick pathologies receiving legal protection.
That would lead to child abuse run amok, and it would be no type of society fit for an innocent newborn.
Then, once the progressives have rendered our society totally pathological, they'll convince you, Mike Potemra, that you may as well let the chillun be killed in utero, to save them the terrible fate of growing up in a socialist hell of mayhem and misery the likes of which have only briefly been witnessed.
You can take to fiddling while civility burns. I'll choose the path less traveled and less convenient.
CAPTCHA: "Hot diggity dog"
You can say that again!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA great response, Madisonian...saving me time I don't have!
Potemra and Goldberg, I'm sorry to say, have (hopefully only temporarily) capitulated on SSM. Ironic, given NR's slogan about standing athwart history yelling "stop"....
There's more that could be said about (1) the fact that these two ideals are not, in the final analysis, actually in competition with each other (that is, neither cancels the other out; (2) the fact that they are, at root, related, since they both derive from our culture's understanding of sexuality; etc.
But you touch on something I wish I could develop more right now -- and which NRO of all places should be examining/promoting daily -- namely, this idea of where the line is being shifted to and why it stops there.
The so-called "slippery slope fallacy" is no fallacy. Slippery slopes do, in fact, exist. Look at all our current battles about encroaching Leftism; you see their roots in the smaller battles of previous decades....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm really not sure if this is sarcasm. How exactly would two gay adults getting married lead to the legalization of child-rape?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would word Madisonian's points differently, but his basis is sound. People who engage in other types of relationships such as bigamy and incest are currently making the argument that what they do is fine, and they're using SSM arguments to do so. Furthermore, some homosexuals also support getting rid of age of consent laws, although that has gotten swept under the rug. Dr. Michael Brown does a great job of pointing this out, using SSM activists own words, in his book "A Qu**r Thing Happened to America".
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Furthermore, some homosexuals also support getting rid of age of consent laws,"
As are some hetereosexuals. However, they are a miniscule minority of each group.
I think that the argument that SSM arguments might be used, by proponents of bigamy - more likely - and incest - less likely - has some merit. The appeal to fairness very often works in America. It does not matter whether fairness is actually involved, all that matters is if fairness is successfully invoked. I could possibly see that happen for bigamy, I doubt that it will ever happen for incest, and I'd bet the last penny of my retirement fund at long odds it will not happen for pedophilia.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSafe bet:
If you're not sure if I employed sarcasm, then I probably didn't.
Like Justice Potter Stewart with his girlie mags on the john, you'll know my sarcasm when you see it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Or, alternatively, many of us see the worming of "gay rights" into our legal fabric as the first step to a carte blanche of legal rights for incest, bigamy, polygamy and pedophilia."
Maybe for the first three, but the legal argument against pedophilia does not depend on whether same sex couples can marry. Children are legally incapable of consenting to sex. This is true whether gay couple can marry or not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNAMBLA - did I get the acronym right - is currently arguing that laws against sex with children are wrong and unconstitutional - they are using the same legal arguments used in gay marriage cases as it relates to the adult. They are not always thrown out carte blanche anymore. Under their view there was nothing wrong with Sandusky. Eventually, on this path, - since society can no longer set its own rules without judicial approval, or rather that judges as in Roe can decide a practice is no longer illegal whatsoever because they feel like it - I would guess that puberty is where the line will be drawn. And of course before that laws against bigamy will be overturned.
Its all coming. You can suggest it is silly if you wish - but that is where the litigation is headed. All built on the legal foundations used in justifying gay marriage. Once a judge can redefine a word at its own whim, and they can apparently, the republic is dead - which it probably is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you. I was busy with a client, and could not respond before you, so thank you.
My interlocutor has a facts problem.
The basis for judges to read "penumbras" into the constitution untethered the entire judiciary -- local, state, federal -- from the common law rules for interpreting legal documents, and from the texts of those documents they are called upon to interpret.
So, that path is well worn by now.
SSM rulings will now be used to support behaviors that the hetero cheerleaders for SSM find beyond the pale.
If they are alive when pedophilia is made judicially permissible, they'll wonder what the hell happened, won't they?
Or, as I originally suggested, they'll just strum the bow across the neck a little more vigorously.
"Straffed by Strauss ~~
They sulk in crumbling Eaves ~~
AGAIN!
Oh GOD! Not AGAIN!"
-Marillion, Garden Party -
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have no facts problem. The facts are that those seeking SSM are advocating for societal recognition of adult relationships. Pedophiliac relationships are by definition not adult relationships, so neither the same legal or emotional campaign is likely to have effect.
There will be no mass movement seeking to normalize pedophilia. There will be no state recognizing the right of adult/child sexual relationships. Gay marriage has existed in much of for some time now and I see no movement for radical lowering of the age of consent. Your position would be stronger if you could cite a single instance where legalization of SSM led to legalization of pedophilia. You cannot, because it has never happened.
As fas as NAMBLA goes, have they ever won a court case seeking to invalidate age of consent laws? They are a powerless lunatic fringe, which is ostrasized by gay groups. Even GLAAD has spoken out vehemently against them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe argument isn't that one will lead to the other. The argument is that certain legal and emotional rationales for one will be used by those who want to legalize the other.
The law also states in much of the country that same sex couples are legally incapable of entering into marriage because it is legally defined as between members of the opposite sex. If certain legal and emotional appeals can overturn those legal structures, has it has done in Mass. and elsewhere, how can one defend other legal structures against such appeals? (And if we can. then the value of those appeals clearly isn't as strong as some would insist.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think it would be an interesting world if we could trade social issues. For example, I support the death penalty and I am against abortion. I would agree to give up the death penalty in exchange for liberals giving up abortion. Likewise, it would be a good deal to give up the traditional definition of marriage (I support traditional marriage) in exchange for an end to abortion. But it isn't as simple as that is it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>being a right-wing Reaganite in the mid-70s
I admit that well could have been the case. And being a left-wing anti-Reaganite ever since.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSometimes I feel that social conservative heterosexuals use gay marriage as a scapegoat for the mess out-of-wedlock births and no fault divorce have caused in the country. There is no way SSM is going to come close to matching that chaos.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy and in what way would we use SSM as a "scapegoat," when we also oppose no-fault divorce and out-of-wedlock births? (Do you, by the way?) Sadly, the problems are multiple.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse