It’s hard (for me) to think of a “less” involved government.
I’m starting to think, and have to to some of my friends about marrage, I think for me i want the gov out of it.

Thanks for being cool with me Dave
I appreciate it.
George

Conservatives are posting here that gays are selfish if they work for “gay issues” rather than those that affect all Americans.

Speaking for myself, Dan, I don’t say it’s automatically selfish for a group to promote its own good.

My objection is to a group that places its own special interests above everything else.

It’s very simple. The statement means exactly what it says.

We have constitutional protections for things like freedom of speech and freedom of religion because we consider it a natural right of a person to be able to speak his mind and worship (or not) as he pleases.

There is no natural right to have the government involved in something called “civil marriage.” There is no such thing as “civil friendship” or “civil siblinghood.” Yet we have a perfect natural right to have friends and siblings! If the government abolished civil marriage no natural right would be removed from legal protection thereby.

As for how governments got so deeply involved in marriages in the first place, you’ll have to turn to a historian of marriage for that. My best guess is that the desire to legally establish inheritance from father to child had something to do with it.

Many gays and lesbians on the left support non gay-specific organizations, like the Sierra Club and the Democratic Party. But they also support gay-specific groups, because of support for issues that get short shrift in other organizations. Why is it selfish for a gay person to support an organization working for employment protection, but not selfish for someone to support an organization working for tax cuts? Many people on the left and the right believe that working for the issues they support will help themselves *and* help society.

Can I ask you to explain something more? “And the enactment of any of these views of marriage in the civil law cannot impinge on anyone’s rights. Civil marriage isn’t a right. The government could abolish it and no one’s rights would be infringed in the slightest.”

So how did the government get involved with marriage at all? Wouldn’t it be better for the government to end (the recognition) of marriage and let churches and People decide what they have?

I am certain you realize that for many on the left, “conservative” means protecting the status quo first and being reasoned last.

Yes, indeed, heliotrope. But then they fail to distinguish between the philosophically conservative and the reflexively conservative. This is unsurprising; most leftists adopt their political thinking for emotional reasons and assume everyone else does the same.

As for same-sex marriage and plural marriage, that involves a question I didn’t address with Mr. Malone: the centrality of couplehood (being a couple) to marriage.

People who want to alter marriage have to justify why certain alterations are good and others bad.

You favor changing the definition of marriage. You want to change it to accept your particular desire. Fine. Now you must demonstrate that your change is beneficial to society and should be part of the formula in determining the compelling state interest to change the marriage definition.

This is pure conjecture, but I image that there is a greater population wanting plural marriage than there is wanting gay marriage. (I am thinking Islam here and other cultural traditions.)

Now let us image that Islamic people are pushing for plural marriage and they oppose gay marriage because they have no earthly appreciation of being gay. Suppose the state looked at that formula and decided that Sharia and radical Islam talks much louder than gay militancy. I am not talking about ethics here, I am suggesting the raw politics of threats and violence.

So, I hear you wonder, would I feel differently about plural marriage? No.

I think we need to have a clear set of reasons as to why we should change the marriage tradition and those reasons had best include clear reasons why the one change does not open the door for other changes.

By the way, there are “foreigners” living here and maintaining plural marriages. The state has decided not to aggravate them. They come to the surface when they try to get welfare for the whole marriage ensemble or papa beats up one of the wives. On the other hand, we are pretty quick to drag Mormon fundamentalists into the limelight if they engage in plural marriages. Typically, the state knows it can stomp on Mormon fundamentalists with impunity, but when it comes to the other cultures, it prefers to let sleeping dogs lie.

Gays can find some convenient bishop of gay marriage, get hitched without any state recognition and wear rings and talk of spouses and call themselves married and commit themselves to one another. No one will stop them, arrest them or try to separate them. Am I wrong?

Heliotrope, I could almost understand the slippery slope argument, that same sex marriage will lead to the re-emergence of polygamy. But why hypocrisy?

The reason why I don’t see the hypocrisy is that, I don’t see anything wrong with homosexuality in and of itself, and that homosexuals should be encouraged to enter monogamous relationships, the same as we do for heterosexuals. On the other hand, I don’t believe that polyamorous relationships should be encouraged. As such, I support same sex marriage, but oppose polygamy.

Kudos. I am certain you realize that for many on the left, “conservative” means protecting the status quo first and being reasoned last. Conservatives, they claim, want to turn the clock back to the bad old days when the “have’s” got their jollies beating up on the “have nots.”

Gay marriage is the upending of the status quo. That is why, when gay marriage is discussed as a political issue, the actual discussion is the purpose and meaning of marriage as a compelling state interest. It is not so much a matter of whether gay marriage is an idea that needs to be addressed as it is whether the state any longer cares to promote or protect the marriage tradition.

I find it enormously hypocritical to favor opening marriage to same sex couples and opposing plural marriage at the same time. That argument demands that there is a compelling state interest for the one and not the other. And, to be really obnoxious, if a woman wishes to marry her rooster rather than broil him for Sunday supper, what is the compelling state interest in denying something she really wants?

instead of jumping my shit, Please explain to me What it means to be a conservative? Explain, if it does, how marriage fits in to that. Is it wrong to want a marriage? How do we live next to, work with and love people who think less of us because we’re gay? At what point do I begin to infringe on their rights and them on mine. I’m being real, I want to know.

OK, George, I’ll do my best to enlighten you. You don’t make the task easy for your focus is basically anti-conservative:

How do we live next to, work with and love people who think less of us because we’re gay?

Conservative political thinking is not based on obsessing over one’s individual traits. That’s an obsession of the cultural left. Conservatism is interested in matters of political principle — what constitutes proper governance. One’s race, creed, or sexuality don’t alter the principle of proper governance any more than one’s taste in foods does. (Please note this is quite different from being focused on social issues from either a left or right-wing point of view.)

I’ve never stated in this forum what my sexual orientation is, or whether I’m in a relationship or not, or whether I’m sexual active or not. No more than I’ve said what my ethnicity or religion or height and weight are. And none of the regulars cares.

Now for the marriage issue, which seems to be your main concern.

Is it wrong to want a marriage? No. Of course if the marriage in question is between two people of the same sex, the question is begged if such a relationship can fulfill what is meant by a marriage. The answer to such a question depends entirely on what one thinks marriage is about.

As a cultural matter, marriage has served as symbol of the ultimate unity of the two different sexes. If this is a sine qua non of marriage for the one asking the question, then of course “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron.

Most arguments about marriage focus on it as a social institution. For those who see its basic function as providing the proper form for procreation and childrearing, same-sex marriage is silly, superfluous, and possibly dangerous. For those who view marriage’s basic import as encouraging sexual fidelity over promiscuity or as simply a means of promoting the happiness of couples, same-sex marriage is simply logical.

As far as political conservatism is concerned, none of this matters a bit. Yes, George, that’s right. You can take any of these views — or none of them — and still be a political conservative. Conservatism started with concerns about socialism replacing the classical liberal principles on which the country was founded. Marriage is an entirely periferal issue.

And the enactment of any of these views of marriage in the civil law cannot impinge on anyone’s rights. Civil marriage isn’t a right. The government could abolish it and no one’s rights would be infringed in the slightest. Note again here, George: Government benefits do not equal rights. If you think they do, you’re not a conservative.

You think that was harsh? HAH! That was the kid-glove treatment. You’d have to do more than “clean the bit” if I’d really been harsh with you. (Oh, and the “doing it on the job” crack was from American Elephant, not me. Get your detractors straight, my man.)

I am not any arm of the GOP, gay, straight, or indifferent. What I said about conservatives and liberty was simply a statement of reality. For conservatives liberty is the ability to act without interference, not gaining the help to act from someone else. Your view of “individual liberty” derives (as is always the case with those on the left) from the French Revolution and the likes of Marx and Engels. For those who believe in the American Revolution, liberty and gaining government benefits have nothing to do with one another.

And you can want all the legal benefits (federal or otherwise) of civil marriage all you want. I don’t care one way or the other. However, your personal desires for yourself shouldn’t be the basis of your voting habits.

21 states where you cannot be fired for being gay: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin

RJLigier, you don’t think people are born gay? more power to you. Here’s a quote for ya, you arrogant fuck. Tell me where I got it

“I nearly didn’t post on this because I think the article is a cheap shot at religious organizations. The fact of the matter is, unless your company has specific policies against discrimination due to sexual orientation, or you live in a state with a non-discrimination law, you can be legally fired for being gay at any company — religious or not. They might not tell you it is for being gay, but it can be done.”

WOW Classical Liberal Dave, harsh I had to clean the bit on that one. Selfish OK, now tell me what else to feel

Perhaps because you’re doing it on the job? LOL, if thats your thing do it man

“Somehow, I don’t think helping people get something from the government is what conservatives mean when they think of individual liberty.” Well I want the federal benifits of marriage, who else do I get them from?

Look I didn’t come on here to fight with “gay arm of the GOP”, it looks like opinions from those not in the club house are not welcome here. Funny

Most states can fire you simply for loving someone.

Perhaps because you’re doing it on the job?

Did I miss something? Did a socialized medicine bill pass?

Did I miss something? Did George W. Bush defeat al Qaeda?

Catch me up!

OH, but to answer your question more fully, as to why they shouldn’t participate, go to the front page of the blog.

Not great responses, I know. But I did grant him a reply:

Did you miss something, Evan? Apparently yes. You missed out on a brain.

Both House and Senate have passed bills giving the government immense and unconstitutional power in health care.

And as for Al Qaeda, Bush’s defeating or not defeating them is irrelevant for this discussion, but he did a better job fighting them than his successor has done so far. As the whole world knows.

You really have a fat lot of nerve raising questions about Bush’s record against Al Qaeda after making fun of people for being alarmed by yet another attempt to destroy an airliner. Perhaps if lefties like you could learn to take matters like national security seriously, your constant whining about how the state won’t validate your identity would be easier to take. Perhaps.

I looked at your blessed home page. There is nothing there that answers my question. So I take it you have no answer other than your reflexive dislike for all things non-leftist.

Poor Evan. He really a loon. But when a guy considers mainstream conservative/anti-leftist types like the GOProud crew to be “wingnuts,” well, he really is too far gone to help, isn’t he? (Some sort of special hospital really needs to be built for these sorts…)

Most states can fire you simply for loving someone. I think we need to work on that

Work on what? Even more power turned over to the State to run businesses?

When you say “individual liberty” does that mean the GOP is ready to help me get married in all 50 states?

Somehow, I don’t think helping people get something from the government is what conservatives mean when they think of individual liberty.

I believe in spending less, small government but im not willing to put my happiness in the hands of the GOP. Do i wish the Dems would spend less, HELL YES. Do I wish they’d help small business HELL YES. But for me I will continue to vote for social issues’s rather then fiscal issues.

TRANSLATION: I will continue to place my selfish concerns above the interests of the country. I will continue to place my self-identification as a homosexual above any sense of duty as a citizen.

This is the typical attitude of those who focus on “social issues” rather than on matters of basic justice or national well-being. It’s always about making themselves feel better about themselves.