Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

Implementing Andrew McCarthy’s Proposed Compromise on the Marriage Question

Next Gen conservative leaders are already on board with this strategy. Will leaders on the other side join them?

by
Paula Bolyard

Bio

February 6, 2014 - 9:00 am
Page 1 of 3  Next ->   View as Single Page

The so-called social issues continue to vex the Republican Party and the conservative movement, so I appreciate the robust and respectful discussion that we’ve had here, spurred by Roger L. Simon’s article, “How Social Conservatives are Saving Liberalism (Barely).” I don’t think anyone would disagree with his observation that the left will attempt to use the issue of same sex marriage as a “wedge to sabotage a whole lot of change at a time when it couldn’t be more necessary. It dovetails perfectly with the mythological ‘war on women,’ which we all will be sure to hear about incessantly.” The left excels at using both marriage and women’s issues to paint conservatives as evil, bigoted misogynists.

As a card-carrying social conservative and member of my county Republican Executive Committee, I understand that these are more than academic debates. It’s not overly dramatic to say that the future of the Republican Party may depend upon how we resolve these issues in the coming months and years. Bryan Preston explains the seriousness of the situation:

The fact is, telling us social cons to shut up is a recipe for demoralizing and destroying the GOP at its base. It would take the cornerstone of the Right out of the movement. Coastal libertarians are not the base of the Republican Party. They don’t man phone banks (sorry for being gender normative there), they don’t conduct block walks, they don’t even usually run for office. They can’t even build a viable movement in their own states.

Many in the Republican Party (and the conservative/libertarian movement) think that the answer is to jettison social issues — or worse, to adopt the left’s positions on them —  while banishing social conservatives to dank phone bank rooms (and assuming they will continue to support the approved, well-scripted, non-ideological candidates). But Andrew McCarthy explains that Republicans cannot win elections if they lose the support of conservatives, “including those animated by social issues,” who, by the way, notes Preston, “aren’t actually pushing anything forward, at least not in the cultural arena.”

121102-democratic-phone-bank

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
All this talk about "leaving it to the states" is pure fantasy. The left and the homosexual activists will not allow it to be left to the states or to the people. They will use the courts to impose homosexual marriage on the nation. We can talk about a third way all day long but it is not going to happen. Look what they did to California when they voted against homosexual marriage. They threw out the will of the people and had morality imposed upon them by the judicial system. Homosexual activists do not want a third way or a truce. They demand that their perversion be endorsed and will not allow anyone an exemption - religious or otherwise. Much of the discussion here is pointless.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Nobody is telling you who you can set up house with, although it's pretty clear you want to set up house with a Strawman. I hope the two of you are very happy.

BTW, the government already tells you any number of other things you may and may not do, in case you hadn't noticed.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think the last line hit the nail on the head. I don't think those agitating for gay marriage are okay with people disagreeing with them and have no interest in compromise.

My biggest problem with gay marriage is the slippery slope argument, not the one that says we'll lead to polygamy and other arrangements, but the one that says as soon as it is enshrined as a *right* it must be accepted by any and all. There is no room for objection: objection is hate. We are already in a place where it is considered indecent to even disagree with the gay rights and privileges lobby. It has already been rejected that I may have thoughtful objections. Obviously my only objection is based on bigotry and hate. Where do we go from there?

A commenter on the McCarthy article said the argument that churches will be forced to conduct gay weddings or be shut down is stupid and won't happen. When you see what is happening to individuals who don't want to participate and are being forced by the rule of law, and clergy in Europe cited and punished for hate speech by speaking out against gay marriage, I don't find it that far fetched.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (63)
All Comments   (63)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
His proposal is a non-starter because it rests on the false assumption that it will satisfy Leftists' desires to conflate homosexual behavior with normal sexual behavior. It seems that some in the Conservative (pseudo) intelligentsia believe that the Left can be appeased. The Left will not rest, regarding this subject, until every Conservative is forced to pretend that homosexual behavior is not sinful, not disgusting, not objectionable - no wait - it will not rest until every Conservative is forced to say, against his will, that it is good. And, this is why we, people not on the coasts, cannot trust the Establishment. They are our enemies too, as they are proving daily.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
No, I would not accept such a 'compromise' - because it isn't a compromise but a betrayal of biology, of human nature, and (most important) of society.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
I believe what is really wrong with anything other than a heterosexual marriage is the fact that children may become involved i.e. ssm adoption. This is simply wrong, and we have already entered the arena. Every child deserves a mother and a father. Ssm can not do this. The homosexuals and all other coupling, tripling, what-have-you relationships are not equipped to be what a child needs. We have wrecked it for the children - and they are the ones who need the most protection.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
1. Voters/states are not being allowed to decide the issue. Prop 8 in CA was overturned in the lower courts, and was not even given a chance for a SCOTUS decision due to two state AGs refusing to defend it- contrary to the responsibilities of their office, the job taxpayers were funding them to do. Note, the VA state AG is taking the same tact- refusing to do his job in defending decision of the majority of voters. (We are descending int lawlessness- this and the whole illegal immigration with sanctuary cities, refusing to determine citizenship and deport etc.)

2. Most of our current issues arise from the breakdown of the family. Every society throughout history has had marriage between men and women as the foundation. We have been conducting a grand social experiment with single parent households, unstable/fluid households and the results are awful- for a significant percentage of the children raised within them and for society in general. Removing one parent (i.e. one gender) from the home has proven to be devastating. We have no idea what the effect on children of being raised in homosexual households will be. We know like single parent households we're removing one gender parent, but those households will also be subject to the same no-fault divorce effects and the resultant instability. Imagine a teen-age child raised by two men, however loving, wondering what if anything they meant to their mother. Were they just a commodity to be sold/traded? Just a business opportunity? (single Dad raising kids whose Mom decided to move out. They have a lot of issues puzzling out what/how their mother feels)

3. I do agree though, that much of the opposition is religious in nature. The government should get out of the religious aspect as well as administering the break-ups. The civil marriage should be replaced by contracts between the adult partners stating responsibilities of the partnership as well as terms for ending it. No more no-fault divorce, no more deciding child-support, custody etc. by family courts. The parties must abide by the terms of the contract, if it assigns disposition based on proving fault, than that's how the partnership is disolved. No more, low income spouse deciding to abandon the responsibilities of the partnership yet insisting on receiving the financial benefits they'd become accustomed to receiving under the partnership. Government no longer calls it a marriage or has religious ministers signing licenses.

That way if folks want to participate in a religious ceremony they are free to do so- but it no longer is the legally binding vehicle recognized by the state. The state only recognizes the partnership contract.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Part II: "Freed up sex" has not stopped at the bedrooms of heterosexuals (and heterosexual sex has possessed social prestige, particualry as marriage). No, homosexuals, transgenders and whatever, hey, they want to pop just like the heterosexuals and with the same SOCIAL prestitge that heterosexuals have monopolized. Without such prestige, homosexual, many colored sex, etc. retain a social stain of disaproval or a second rate status and that is demeaning to homosexuals, etc.. Ah, here arises homosexual marriage imperatively as (1) a right (check out the EU yesterday) and (2) a prestige form that must be legally and socially there if homosexuality is to be liberated form its socially LOW ground of yesteryear. So the EU, not to speak of Germany, is pushing homosexuality, transgender, etc. as a sexual way that is perfectly NORMATIVE within European CULTURE (all of which is dying out for lack of reproduction!) and must be respected to point of legal punishment for detractors.

Please note, homosexual marriage is just the wedge cause célèbre for the moment. It entails a radical alteration of the meaning and social function of "marriage" (and more). Homosexual marriage is BARREN unto infinity and, hence, it is the type of sexual behavior that both physcially and symbolically leads to cultural death!!! In other words, homosexuality is as a cultural value parasitical non plus!!! It cannot reproduce itself as a life style, rather is dependent upon heterosexual sex for its future generations.

Homosexual marriage, seeking social prestige, redefines marriage as a legally and socially regulated "living together" of two (or eventually more) persons in love (sic) who wish a cohabitation form with social prestige. This necessarily alters the meaning of marriage per se. In other words, it deeps the chasm between reproductive sex in a familial situation and personal pleasure sex, reducing familial sex to a mere secondary feature of marriage. Homosexual marriage will effect heterosexual marriage by relegating it to an accidental feature of marraige. Thereby, homosexual marriage will hasten society's death.

But there is more, MUCH more and RADICALLY revolutionary and will alter the very identiy individuals are allowed to have re their biological self and their psychological self. For that (and it is happening NOW in Europe) let us go to Part III.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Part III: Homosexuality now demands social equality. Matters do not stop there. Remember it was just not enough to free blacks from formal subjugation, rather steps, including forced integration, were needed to get at the cause of prejudice. Similiarly, with the low prestige of homosexuality, etc. What is the source for prejudice against homosexuality in society? (Prejudice here = individuals holding homosexuality as not being on the societal level of heterosexuality.) The answer is the historical view of two sex sexuality as normative. In other words, children learn to identify their psychological self with their biological self and take that identity as normative. Overwhelmingly that means the dominance of heterosexuality. No wonder prejudice against homosexuality arises. What to do? Well, the learning process of children, particularly coming form families, is one of identifying physical and psychological sex as normative. Children must be separated as much as possible from family influence and placed in public care. Why? The nexus must be eliminated and that is best done in a extra-family situation, e.g., public schools (and in some German schools this is de facto taking place). 1. Children must be sexualized as early as possible, e.g., pre-kindergarten. 2. They, being sexualized, will then learn that their physcial sex is not normaltively coupled with their biological sex. To learn this is to be liberated from prejudice against homosexuality. 3. Techniques are employed to de-genderize children, i.e., to inculcate the free choice of sex identity. The maxim = physical sex does not equal pyschological sex. If, for instance, a boy feels that he is a girl, well he will shower with his fellow girls. All this as a program is called "Gender Mainstreaming". I believe that it is taking place in Calif. Whatever. It is here where I live. A policy of the Greens and left social demos.

Summary: I have taken my reader through a logical, symoblic and factual evoluton of values, beginning with the intent of equalizing hetero- and homosexuality in the realm of marriage. This is A. Those who say A, logically should say B (Gender Mainstream). Not all do, that is fact. Logically, it should be done and is de facto happening now. All this means for me is that the blah, blah of this article and the others on the subject are immersed in party tactics without any realization, as far as I read, of the logical and real implications of "homosexual marriage". Given my views, I think it is a waste of time. Play down my views here and I will vote there (or remain silent).
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Part I: "Take the high ground!", so the author. Ok, my ground will be as high as the survival or non-survival of a society living in accord with a cultural value system. "Cultural systems" consist of all the values, plus + minus, according to which the society flows with spontaneity. If certain values and their logical implications lead inexorably to the extinction of said society, then the "cultural" values are suicidal and that is LOW ground.

European cultures (e.g.,Germany where I live) have a 1.4 children per woman. This means that European (now American) societies are in the process of dying out!!! In 2000 there were 15.2 million Germans 18 and younger. In 2011 there were 13 million. Extrapolate, please, to the aysmetrical final goal = one day "0" people of the culture left. I submit that cultural values that contribute concretely and symbolically to a "cultural of death", as Pope Benedict called it, are morally perverse, stupid, self-destruction and indifferent to the maintain human existence. The thesis rests upon simple subtractive math.

How is it that German society is self-immolating? Do not the Germans realize this? They do! What do Germans do to remedy the situation? Nothing effective, because they continue forming society according to their "culture of death" (full of many, many wonderful things, except survival). Since th 1960s Germans have radically cut heterosexual sex activity for pleasure, fulfillment, etc. from the sexual acts grounding and promoting family life. Sex life does NOT, of course, exclude children, but in its ESSENCE it has nothing structurally to do with reproduction. So, a very effective contraception mechanism has evolved, both preventitive and remedial. Condoms, pills, etc. prevent conception and, should that, uhhh, thing take place, abortion remedies the error and "popping merrily" goes on and on and ... . These happy go-lucky preventitive measures, now firmly cultural values, have resulted in the non-reproductive birthrate condemning German society to extinction. In place of families there has arisen a society of passing sex and limited time unions unto marriage (with high divorce rate) with 1 or 2 children or none (a perfect socially acceptable and praiseworthy type of marriage). Just math, my opponent readers, just math and socio-cultural effects!

Once the principle of freeing up heterosexual with its culture of passing unions, shrinking marriage (with ever less children) has taken cultural form and dominance, other developments evolve, e.g., get women out of the family and into the work place. The freeing up principle has more ominous implications. Who says A, must say B and eventually say "0". See Part II



The radical separation of heterosexual sex from
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Yet, though there are exceptions and extremes, I believe [religious believers] would accept — not approve but accept – gay marriage if: (a) it were legitimately adopted by popular vote or the state legislative process, and (b) its enactment explicitly recognized the right of religious objectors to refrain from violating their beliefs."

I should have responded to this on McCarthy's post, but as Kipling below points out, California's Proposition 8 saga knocks THAT pipe dream into a cocked hat.

It takes two to tango, and the Gay Cult/Lobby isn't in the mood to compromise. They might have had civil unions or domestic partnerships, but that wasn't enough. They want "Marriage" with a capital 'M".

And lest anyone try to sell you the notion that militant homosexuals won't be standing at the doors to YOUR church all dressed up for their Big Day and with a platoon of lawyers for groomsmen and bridesmaids, that is exactly what is taking place over in (formerly) Great Britain, where two sexual deviants are suing the Church of England because they WANT a CHURCH wedding...and have engaged barristers and solicitors to argue that such is their "Right".

Today it's the bakers and the florists...tomorrow it will be the Elders and the ArchBishops.

Face the fact that these people, who until 1974 were considered by the US American Psychiatric Association to be diagnosably mentally ill, have been organized into a societal battering ram...rather like he early Bolsheviks and their "Shock Brigades of Chess Players"...their function is to stir up dissension and internal strife.

So go ahead and try "compromising" with them...see if it works any better than a fly negotiating with a spider.

It won't. It never has and it never will. Stop advocating to Conservatives that we should try to. It isn't going to work and quite frankly I'm DAMNED TIRED of hearing it.

27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
All this talk about "leaving it to the states" is pure fantasy. The left and the homosexual activists will not allow it to be left to the states or to the people. They will use the courts to impose homosexual marriage on the nation. We can talk about a third way all day long but it is not going to happen. Look what they did to California when they voted against homosexual marriage. They threw out the will of the people and had morality imposed upon them by the judicial system. Homosexual activists do not want a third way or a truce. They demand that their perversion be endorsed and will not allow anyone an exemption - religious or otherwise. Much of the discussion here is pointless.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Howdy Kipling
There's another problem with "leave it to the states." If a marriage or any civil union is lawful in Massachusetts and not in Texas, the married couple are constrained to live in a state that will recognize their marriage. That impedes their liberty to live where they choose.
I think that civil unions for all at the state level, and marriage according to doctrine at the church level, are the appropriate way to go. The legal process is to file the appropriate paperwork; any ceremony is up to the people involved, a willing officiant, and whatever business operators choose to work with them.
There's this also: a person who works for the government would not get to object to registering the civil unions.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
It is very reasonable to be annoyed by Federal judges ramming every leftist fad down everyone's throat. I actually believe that gay marriages time has come and that being anti-gay marriage is a loser issue for Republicans.

Now here is the thing, I can't say that and believe that without also believing that in some reasonable time we can get it passed in the Texas Legislature. We are going to have to repeal our Constitutional Amendment (which we wouldn't have if Federal judges weren't acting like little tin gods all the time). That thing only got passed because the SoCons assumed (probably rightly) that the left intended to jam this down the majorities throat without consent.

I believe that they were overcome by events. The matter was framed as a liberty argument and virtually everyone below the age of 40 knows someone who they like and who is gay, so, for once, they actually won the argument fair and square.

It must be a new feeling for a leftist...
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Actually, the majority of people are still not in support of SSM.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
The piecemeal approach of allowing state's to decide the issue will not be accepted by that segment of the homosexual movement that is agitating for same-sex marriage. They are using marriage to normalize homosexuality in the eyes of society. They want their sexual orientation and their unions to be viewed as the equal of, and as normal as heterosexuality and traditional marriage. And they will settle for nothing less than federal recognition.

We have to decide as a society if we are going to be led by laws and institutions based on rationality. Or if they are going to be based on the desire of a small segment of our community for whom the institution of marriage was not designed for in the first place.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think the movement's support is not just for homosexual acceptance and equality, but more about lowering moral standards for heterosexual behavior. Consider, to equate heterssexual relationships with homosexual relationships, either homosexuals have more obligation than they should rightfully have or heterosexuals have less.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Howdy Rebecca and Rebecca
I hope that homosexual people who wish to marry are taking on the commitment that I hope heterosexual people are saying they will take on -- to love and cherish till death do us part. I know some don't take that seriously, gay or straight.
I haven't found the rational basis to discriminate against people who are homosexual. Family law, including marriage, exists to protect children first and to provide orderly ways to manage property, debt, and other obligations that a household takes on. We've never restricted marriage or legal recognition of a household to those who are fertile.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
***We've never restricted marriage or legal recognition of a household to those who are fertile.***

Why would we? Traditional marriage is the normative in virtually every society that has marriage. Heterosexuality is the way we procreate regardless of whether all male/female pair bonds reproduce. It is still the model that should be presented to our future progeny since there is ample evidence that these pairings produce the most stable families in our society.

There is no reason to discriminate against anyone concerning who they live with or who they enter into contracts with. These domestic partnerships can be tinkered with to make them as equitable as what married folks enjoy.

But there is ample reason to keep traditional marriage as it has always been. And absolutely no reason to expand it to include homosexuals except for the aforementioned desire on their part to normalize their sexual orientation. An impossible task since we are rational beings.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All