A same-sex marriage campaign spearheaded by a group calling itself conservative was launched Tuesday in hopes of capitalizing on the growing support for gay marriage among young Americans. Critics argue, however, that there is nothing conservative about supporting same-sex marriage.
The Freedom to Marry group implemented the "Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry" campaign on July 10, in which they claim that same-sex marriage "fulfills basic conservative values of responsibility and community, as well as limited government and individual freedom," according to the campaign's news release.
... Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which advocates marriage as being between one man and one woman, argues that same-sex marriage support is not a grassroots movement among true conservatives.
"It's not conservative to want to undermine marriage," Brown told The Washington Times.
"One of the core pillars of conservatism is protecting and uplifting marriage as the union of a man and a woman," Brown continued, adding that all major conservative thinkers, or "the fountainhead of American conservatism," agree upon that belief.
Brown argues that the true purpose of the campaign is to not represent a grassroots conservative movement for same-sex marriage, but rather to "bifurcate religious organizations -- get religious organizations to support redefining marriage -- and also the Republican Party."
40 Comments
"We need to emphasize the Republican Party's history with limited government..."
How in the world is expanding government into relationships that society has no interest in a tenet of the "limited government" philosophy?
How is changing the historic and vitally important public mission of marriage to one about validating "love" (something that is not the purview of government) supposed to reinforce principles of "limited government"?
How is something that will undoubtedly cause an increase in state power to determine parentage, a flood of lawsuits against businesses and religious establishments, and, fundamentally, more marriage related items in the docket, such as divorces and benefits, an affirmation of the "limited government" philosophy, especially since these changes will provide zero in terms of meeting societal needs?
And please try to square this "conservative" ideal of ssm with the fact that many of ssm's ardent supporters in academia hate the role marriage plays as a privatized form of welfare for women and children. (These are not dumb people who don't really know what harm they are doing to their economic justice cause by supporting a duplicitous scheme known as ssm that will actually further Republican objectives!)
When alleged "conservatives" try to make ssm out to be a conservative idea, they look pretty silly. That's because, as Brian said, it's not a conservative idea. It's an attempt to break Republican (and religious) solidarity on marriage.
*Correction: ssm is "not a conservative idea. Those claiming it is are just trying to break Republican (and religious) solidarity on marriage."
This culture war is showing more and more its other colors. Which have nothing to do with sexual preferences nor the groups that stem from them, but rather with the economy (money, profits). The medical community (and lobbies, as well as the western economic machine) wants to turn their research expenses and advances into profit, through the marketing of children.
The homosexual community, with its “old” arguments about sexual liberties, really has little say at this level. For here their arguments (and energies) are only used as a smoke screen, by the market itself for its on interests. They are effectively mixing the two subjects into one: the rights of people to find sexual pleasure as they like within the public eye, with the human desire (and need) to have children. And thus transforming this desire into a perceived legitimate “demand” that need be answered by “supply.”
Their sale? The educating of its customer base (all human-beings) that the uniting of man and woman is no longer needed to produce babies. Now simply a certain sum of 'money' is sufficient to do so. And with marriage already being an effective and acceptable place to raise children, as well as it being defined as the thing that units children to their parents, it gives the market a “legitimate” place to market its merchandise; that is to say, to “married “people. Whoever they be.
Creating and stimulating a market, to later be able to innocently say, “we are simply supplying a demand.” (The same thing the market will do by selling men to all men rather then only selling woman to men, in the market of sex. And all those lawsuits and new legal work for lawyers is more easy money for the economy.)
So the counter arguments directed at traditional marriage advocates should be coming as much from, or more so from, Wall Street investors, and the medical and pharmaceutical community, rather than from homosexuals. And yet there not to be heard from on the issue. Why should they be, when they can stay high and dry as they instigate the LGBT community to do their dirty work for them. Of course this community as well as the young GOP are just being used to push forward a larger agenda. Additional money and power, for the “1” percent.
We need renewed morals and values! Not a renewed economy!!! Money is nothing! But try to sell that to the (intentionally) financially strapped and stressed public come voting time...
Same-sex marriage = same-sex reproduction = transhumanism = the opposite of conservatism.
Also, Ash makes good points about how it is not "small government" to support same-sex marriage, especially so when we consider it means allowing same-sex reproduction which will be a huge costly entitlement and lead to more government regulation of reproduction. Keeping reproduction natural is conservative and small government, but it requires a federal law to accomplish it. Some people oppose a federal law because they think that is consistent with libertarian principles, but a simple blanket ban would not require any policing or funding, it'd just rule out stuff before it is developed.
"So the counter arguments directed at traditional marriage advocates should be coming as much from, or more so from, Wall Street investors, and the medical and pharmaceutical community, rather than from homosexuals. And yet there not to be heard from on the issue. Why should they be, when they can stay high and dry as they instigate the LGBT community to do their dirty work for them."
Yes! That's exactly what has been going on.
I'm a young Conservative, 20 years old and I have to tell you...this group does not speak for me.
I support traditional Marriage, I'm pro-life, pro-small government and pro-constitution.
Well said, Ash.
There is nothing "limited" about a government that redefines marriage. And people already have the freedom to live as they choose. This is nothing more than empty rhetoric.
-----
Good News
Not all Republicans are conservative. Many Republicans are actually libertarian. Which is a philosophy that regards personal autonomy and freedom, both in lifestyle and economics, as the highest good.
Libertarian icon Ayn Rand wrote a book entitled "The Virtue Of Selfishness" where she posited that any rational desire of man is, by definition, a moral good.
"Government should not make laws regarding relationships."
"All people should be able to have a civil marriage."
The problem is that the two statements directly contradict one another, and the author doesn't even notice.
If Am3rica falls for this kind of "argument", then, honestly, they deserve what will follow.
LGBT organizations have been doing very good outreach to conservatives for a while. It certainly paid off in New Hampshire earlier this year.
And the whole Ron Paul Revolution-thing may have changed some people's stances on this issue. I've personally seen some evidence of that.
Dick Cheney will be surprised to learn he's not a true conservative.
@Bruce
There are varying degrees of conservatism.
In Dick Cheney's case, he's a fiscal conservative and a social moderate.
Government should not make laws regarding relationships.
The government does not make any laws in regards to relationships. Show me where in Americia where the government restricts your relationship. No one is arrested or thrown in jail for forming a relationship.
All people should be able to have a civil marriage.
Everyone can have a civil marriage. Since marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman all who obey the laws may get married with no discrimination in regards to your sexual behavior. The sexes are equal one man and one woman.
But the government should not restrict a right to only a certain group.
The government does not restrict the right of any group. Go marry your catcus plant as you have that right. Ahh but government recognition of your relationship is a PRIVILEDGE and not a right. Since the state bestows benefits on this relationship the government may restrict the requirements of who gets these benefits.
"Government should not make laws regarding relationships."
Of course it should, it should prohibit marriage between siblings, for example. Whenever a relationship type is off-limits to conceive offspring or have sex, it should be prohibited by government from marrying, because marrying should always be public approval to have sex and reproduce offspring together.
"All people should be able to have a civil marriage."
And all married couples should be allowed and approved to attempt to reproduce offspring together using their own genes. That's very important, no one should feel they don't have a right to marry and procreate. But they have to pick someone with whom it would be ethical to have sex and procreate with, and then publicly commit to the obligations of marriage to make it right.
John Howard...
God has given mankind the intellect to learn how to create human life without penis-->vagina penetration.
The technology to create human life from the DNA of a single person is not so far away as people think.
When gay people are able to 'procreate' using their own DNA, what then will be NOM's reason for refusing to allow them to marry?
@Married
"When gay people are able to 'procreate' using their own DNA, what then will be NOM's reason for refusing to allow them to marry?"
The arguments and reasoning won't change. Men and women are different. Each gender has something unique to contribute to a child that two people of the same-gender cannot give. Marriage as an institution establishes the ability for a child to understand this. To redefine Marriage is to tell children and tell society that there is no difference, that gender doesn't matter that you don't need a mother nor a father in order to properly develop. Statistics refute that.
Gender matters.
What will be NOM's reason? I think their reason will be that man-woman marriage is still needed as a normative pressure to make men stick around and care for the woman they had sex with. NOM does not seem to oppose same-sex couples 'procreating' with stem sells or genetic engineering, they seem to have reverence and sympathy for libertarianism and oppose prohibiting same-sex procreation. Maggie has said about changing sex "if it is possible then it is possible."
I on the other hand am a conservative, not a libertarian, and think Congress should prohibit all attempts at creating people that are not the union of a man and a woman's natural gametes.
But you are right, married, that as long as same-sex procreation is legal, then of course same-sex marriage should be legal too. To say otherwise is to separate marriage from procreation and so would have the opposite normative effect than they think.
I don't know why they can't bring themselves to call for a federal egg and sperm law.
15
"MarriedGayChristian"
Can't be homo AND Christian.
==God has given mankind the intellect to learn how to create human life without penis-->vagina penetration.==
God has given Man the intellect to learn to do a lotta things, including evil. That doesn't mean He supports our doing evil.
==The technology to create human life from the DNA of a single person is not so far away as people think.==
That it can be done doesn't mean that it SHOULD be done.
==When gay people are able to 'procreate' using their own DNA, what then will be NOM's reason for refusing to allow them to marry?==
The clue is your putting "procreate" in quotes. This means that you understand that it's not really "procreation," that only male and female can procreate.
How ironic that those who claim to be homo must rely on heterosexuality to procreate.
@MarriedGayChristian
Marriage is the human-species in its completed form.
With all its organs and chromosomes finally united into a single living entity.
One of the characteristics of this living thing (though not obligatory) is that if healthy and fully function it will reproduce itself on its own.
This unique and original thing will always be needing a word to name itself. New scientific reproductive capabilities does not change that in the least.
NOM will simply cease to exist ones the word “marriage” becomes irrelevant to its subject. And it will become “NO...?”. (New word yet to be invented.) As for now we are still hoping for a little reason and good sense.
And by the way MarriedGayChristian, are you married to the opposite sex or the same sex?
MarriedGayChristian, that's not procreation. That is manufacturing using human material.
Before the technology could be offered commercially, the various processes would require a lot of trial and error and refinement, including the creation of human test subjects to evaluate outcomes for the individuals created in this manner. What will happen to those test subjects?
Lefty, we shouldn't allow anyone to manufacture those "test subjects" in the first place. Why are people so afraid to say it shouldn't be allowed? Right now it is legal! There is no law against it. Manufacture of human beings from modified genes needs to be made illegal, with a federal law and international treaties prohibiting creation of people by any means other than joining a man and a woman's natural gametes. Otherwise we should allow same-sex marriage because if a same-sex couple is allowed to conceive offspring together, they should be married first, right?
@John
It should be outlawed and severely controlled and regulated.
The fact that it is simply legal on the open market is an outrage.
The women and people who have babies this way should have their children taken away, and they should do prison time. So to stop the tide of this trend.
But what to do? Wall Street and the City of London say its fine, and they buy off politicians (and entire countries) like summer fruits at a road side stand.
NOM is as streamlined as possible toward the one subject of marriage being between a man and a woman. Maybe that is why it is not talked about as much as you would like on this site. Though the subject of these new technologies is not irrelevant in any way.
Keep waking people up to the realities.
@Good News: "It should be outlawed and severely controlled and regulated.
The fact that it is simply legal on the open market is an outrage."
Yes, thank you! And doing so is the key to stopping same-sex marriage and preserving marriage as a man and a woman. Every SSMer who you encounter should be told that society should not approve and allow same-sex procreation, it should be prohibited. There is no need to make any other argument, they are counter-productive because they don't hold water as long as same-sex procreation is legal.
24
Refresh my memory.
"Same-sex should be prohibited"? How can we prohibit something that can't happen?
I'm not trying to be a wiseguy. I want to know how to make this argument elsewhere, if I can.
It could happen using stem cell derived gametes. It doesn't matter if they would be successful or not, we should prohibit anyone from attempting it.
26
I get it. Thanks.
26
I just went ,briefly, through the history of your posts and, now, I'm up to agreement speed again.
@John Howard
MarriedGayChristian seems to be looking forward to this technology, so I asked him a question about the implications of what he wants. Because I want to know what he thinks.
@Lefty, yes, MarriedGayChristian does seem to be looking forward to it, as are many other SSMers and Transhumanists and Libertarians. It's good to ask him questions, and keep asking them, because they rarely answer but they do answer enough to know that they don't care about risks to the baby or costs to society, they just think it'll be cool.
My comment to you was because your question seemed to imply that we had to let them do it, by the language you used: "what will happen to those test subjects?" It's important to remember that we can prohibit it, not just fret about how bad it will be and hope it never happens.
Bruce said:
"Dick Cheney will be surprised to learn he's not a true conservative."
The SSM idea is not a conservative idea. Some conservatives are inconsistent on the ideas that they come to terms with. Cheney has a daughter who probably believes more strongly in the SSM idea than Cheney believes in the marriage idea. Hence the compromise he has struck between conservative principles and other considerations.
Most of the people who sit in the middle, well, they just would rather the issue would just go away because it is nonsensical to them. The SSM campaign relies heavily on emotionalism to move people from the middle to their side. But that is unprincipled even if it is politically effective sometimes.
On the other hand, SSMers go on and on about the lack of strong arguments in favor of the marriage idea; they go on that way because they are emotionally blind to the substantive arguments in favor of the bride-groom requirement. So the emphasis on emotionalism is the default position anyway.
The SSM idea is neither a conservative nor a libertarian idea. That is, it drops or deeply discounts the principles of both systems of thought. IT usually boils down to a feeling that the gay identity group gets special treatment today and so society might as well let go of the marriage idea and just move on to other stuff that the fence-sitter is more happy to fight on principle about.
Someone earlier said:
"When gay people are able to 'procreate' using their own DNA, what then will be NOM's reason for refusing to allow them to marry?"
First things first: that would not be human procreation but rather human manufacture. Thus it would not be responsible procreation. It would be an affront to the marriage idea and an affront to respect for human dignity.
So if you look to such a possibility, then, you do not look to the core of marriage but rather to something far outside of the boundaries of marriage. It would be nonmarital even if married people would partake of it. So it would be nonmarital even if the gay subset of nonmarriage would partake of it.
Marriage law is for marriage, not non-marriage. Marriage entails the right to form a bodily union orientated toward procreation. It entails the liberty to attempt to procreate with each other -- as husband and wife. Government does not interfere with that.
But human manufacture? A different story. Something that SSMers often gloss over. That is why (I think) John Howard is persistent in highlighting his valid concerns regarding the gloss that the entrenchment of SSM (i.e. gay-union-as-marriage) would officially paint over human manufacture. The big hairy arm of government would be pushed to enforce yet another falsehood on society.
"When gay people are able to 'procreate' using their own DNA, what then will be NOM's reason for refusing to allow them to marry?"
Honestly, I still think marriage would have nothing to do with same-sex couples.
Marriage is only sexual because of what results from man-woman bodily union, and that is children.
Even if something as unethical as the engineering children from the DNA of two same sex persons were to come about, that would have nothing to do with marriage, which is sexual. There is no reason to recognize two women having sexual relations because of the possibility that they might have their eggs fused in a lab.
There are no parentage considerations either. Consider that, today, paternity is far more uncertain than maternity, based on the nature of human reproduction. Marriage is a relatively inexpensive way to determine paternity.
By contrast, there are no similar uncertainties with lesbian parentage. We know that a child does not have two mothers, and that parental status has to be detached from a biological father and attached to a lesbian co-parent.
In the case of same-sex “reproduction,” the differences between that and the normal reproduction of marriage is pretty large. The landscape is totally different. There is no need for society to declare that two women are having sexual relations exclusively, thus we can presume that both women had their eggs fused in a lab to create a child in question; the disconnect between the sexual behaviors and the resultant child would be astounding and irrational.
But society can say that this particular man and woman are having sexual relations only with each other in the bonds of marriage, and so it is reasonable to presume that the husband is the father of the child in question. There’s a chance that he might not be, but it’s not unreasonable for us to presume that he is. And this presumption is *highly* contingent on the sexually exclusive nature of their union known as “marriage.”
People can expound on my thoughts, and ask for clarification. I hope my post is clear. My main point is that same-sex couples trying to imitate marriages by creating children in a lab would not be sufficient in making the case for ssm. Such procedures still would not make same-sex couples reasonably similar to opposite-sex couples in terms of the purposes of marriage.
Chairm and Ash, if two people are going to have a child together, they should be married first. Unless we prohibit manufacture of children for same-sex couples, we should allow same-sex marriage. Why do you guys resist the obvious conclusion that we need to prohibit manufacture of human beings?
I do not resist the conclusion. Quite the contrary, as you well know, John, from our many previous discussions on the matter.
However, I do not believe that partaking of human manufacture is a justification for forming a marital relationship; it is not so for the two-sexed scenario and it is not so for the one-sexed scenario.
First of all, it ought to be a moot point, because it ought to be prohibited, and you always seem to forget to say that. And second, that position contradicts the message that if two people have a baby together they should get married first. Why do you so persistently make those mistakes, when it is so easy and so necessary to say that same-sex couples should not be allowed to conceive offspring together? If you are worried about alienating the Libertarians, don't be, they are not for traditional marriage anyhow.
John, of course I oppose the manufacturing of children! I'm with you 100%.
I just think that's a totally different dynamic than the societal problems that result from sexual relations between men and women that marriage has sought to, and continues at aiming to, resolve.
Not only the fact that such engineering of children renders the sexual nature of marriage unintelligible. I mean...it does. Please explain to me why the government would recognize the exclusive sexual relationship of two women because they might clone a child, when their sexual relationship is irrelevant to the existence of the child? The disconnect between sex and parentage would not fit marriage: a relationship in which sexuality and parentage are closely knitted together.
There are also other differences. One could argue that two women willfully cloning children does not make for the same problems that marriage has historically solved and seeks to solve today. We're talking about men having sex with women--impulsive actions--which can result in unintended pregnancies, unknown paternity, absent fathers, poverty, and the need for massive state interference to support broken families.
You may think I'm grasping at straws; but some courts have noted that same-sex couples raising children are not similarly situated to opposite-sex couples in that the lengths they go through to acquire children demonstrate that they are capable and willing care-takers. Opposite-sex couples, on the other hand, create children in an unplanned, haphazard manner, and need marriage, in part, for that reason. They create children *sexually* which is why marriage is a sexual relationship.
I should note that the court did say that over/under-inclusiveness is irrelevant to rational basis review in any case. But they merely offered reasons for why the legislature may rationally see opposite-sex couples as different from same-sex couples raising children. This reasoning would extend to the cloning of children by same-sex couples.
I wholeheartedly oppose the creation of children from two same-sex persons. But I just don't see that situation as making same-sex unions sufficiently similar to opposite-sex unions.
*If* such a thing were to occur, and the people and their elected officials see the need to address issues related to two women who are "biological" parents, that would require a new institution--not marriage.
I'm with you, John, on the unethical nature of same-sex child manufacturing. But, unfortunately, you're doing what SSMers often do: taking one aspect of marriage and making it the end-all-be-all of the institution, despite the inconsistencies between that one aspect of marriage that applies (or would apply) to same-sex couples, and the other aspects that manifestly do not.
You're zeroing in on the approval of conception aspect as if same-sex "reproduction" would square marriage--a sexual relationship--with non-sexual reproduction; would square same-sex relationships with the presumption of paternity; and would square a new phenomenon (cloning) with the unique problems of male-female sexual unions.
Technically, one could make the "if two people have a child..." argument with same-sex adoption. But, for the reasons I've laid out, marriage doesn't apply.
I'm not saying "conception rights" are the "be all end all" of marriage, of course there is more to marriage than just being allowed to conceive offspring together. But it is the essential core feature and must be protected, so that people don't feel pressured to substitute better genes to have a child than their own. And by protecting that core feature, we can end same-sex marriage by prohibiting manufacture of human beings.
You are responding as though there was a right to make offspring with someone of the same sex and society will have to let labs try and do that. You think I am making an argument for same-sex marriage based on the technology being possible, but as I keep trying to say, it doesn't matter if it is possible or not, what matters is if it is legal. All we have to do is make attempting it illegal, and preserve the effect of marriage as approving of attempting to conceive offspring together.
If we let labs make babies from same-sex couples, it will be a horrible wasteful unethical expensive mistake. It is already horrible unethical and crue that we let kids think that it might be possible some day, and haven't ruled it out yet. And you are contributing to that cruelty and confusion when you say "bring it on" instead of "sorry ladies that's unethical."
Limiting the creation of people to a man and a woman using their unmodified genes is something we need to do right now. And so is preserving marriage's conception rights.
Marriage provides for responsible procreation. Human manufacture does not qualify.
I have not made the error of speculatively encouraging anyone to marry who would attain children through human manufacture. Such manufacture is neither an excuse nor a justification for forming a marital relationship, much less for forming a one-sex-short relationship to raise children so manufactured.
My previous remarks are very clear on this. I said it applies to the two-sexed scenario (in which, for instance, cloning through one of the individual's genes would be manufacture); I said it applies to the one-sexed scenario. Human manufacture is not defined by the same-sex scenario but it is definitively not human procreation, much less responsible procreation.
I recognize the gloss that SSMers would very likely (and some already do) put on the liberty to attempt to procreate within marriage, if SSM and marriage were to become merged under law and policy and culture. The danger is in the replacement of the marriage idea with the specious substitution that SSMers insist upon.
Marriage approves procreation, it says the couple may attempt to procreate offspring together. If a same-sex couple is married then it says society approves of them attempting to make offspring, society approves of the concept of children from two people of the same sex. If it doesn't say that, then you have broken marriage and stripped conception rights from it.
Chairm, do you think a married man and a woman have a right to attempt to create offspring together, and should not be prohibited from conceiving offspring together? Or, do you think marriage should not mean the couple is allowed and approved to conceive offspring?
Is that your objection? You think some married couples should not be approved to use their own genes to conceive offspring, if they have bad genes or something like that? So you don't want to protect the conception rights of marriage?
You've assured me that you want to prohibit same-sex procreation, so the only other reason to fight against me is that you think marriage shouldn't protect conception rights. Perhaps you think it'd mean we couldn't prohibit IVF or other ARTs if we protected marriage's conception rights, or that we'd have to fund them and make them free for everyone, but all it would mean is that people couldn't be prohibited from using their own genes to conceive with their spouse and their own genes. It wouldn't mean marriages were guaranteed a right to a baby, it'd mean they were guaranteed a right to have sex and conceive offspring using their own genes.
Human manufacture is not human procreation. That is so for husband and wife as it is for anyone else. We have covered that ground before.
SSM is not marriage. Merging the two would mean replacing the marriage idea with the SSM idea. That would mean gutting marriage of its core meaning.
Falsely equating human manufacture with human procreation would be unjust. Falsely equating SSM with marriage would be unjust.
If you intend to say that imposing these false equivalencies via SSM must lead to a dilemma in which the liberty of husband and wife to attempt to procreate together would be deeply compromised, then, you know we agree that would be an unjust prospect.
The abuse of marriage for a non-marriage purpose is rather blatant where it would enable and chieldeven the attempt at human manufacture, or where it would deeply compromise (if not obliterate) the liberty to procreate together as husband and wife.
Do not assume that I "want to prohibit same-sex procreation". It is not procreation. It is human manufacture. It is not entailed in the core meaning of marriage.
However, you concerns are valid: human manufacture under the false notion of "same-sex procreation" is riding on the coat-tails of the SSM idea. It would be unjust no matter what is labelled as.