Skip to main content

Conservative intelligentsia largely silent on gay marriage

We've had an entire weekend to react to news of New York's gay marriage law, and the silence of so much of the right on the topic is pretty notable. I've periodically checked in at a number of leading conservative blogs over the last 48 hours—Hot Air, Power Line, Red State, No Left Turns, Commentary, Weekly Standard—and the reaction has been almost total silence. There has been more hubub in the Catholic precincts of National Review, but it's not one-sided: there's genuine debate going on there.

Obviously there are plenty of self-described conservatives out there—particularly religious conservatives—who are incensed. And they always will be. But a good chunk of the conservative intelligentsia just can't rouse itself to battle on the topic—probably, I'm guessing, because so many folks in that group have gay friends. It takes two sides to have a culture war; on this issue, at least, one side appears to be leaving the battlefield.

Comments

deregulator said…
New York neutralized one of the major conservative arguments against gay marriage by enacting it through legislation. I think it's difficult for thoughtful conservatives to come up with convincing non-religious arguments against gay marriage legislation if they also believe, for example, that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and abortion rights decided on a state-by-state basis using democratic processes.
Glomarization said…
It seems to me that a big argument against gay marriage is that it "destroys" or "harms" traditional marriage. But that's not a position that can be intellectually honestly argued, because how does allowing two gay people to enjoy the civil rights and legal benefits of state-recognized union actually destroy or harm either the religious or the secular aspects of a traditional marriage? Likewise I think the evidence is there to show that kids raised by same-sex parents turn out fine, whether they're biological children of one of the parents or fostered or adopted children.

There's also a legal catch-22 regarding civil rights. If gays are a "protected class," then laws discriminating against them must be evaluated with heightened scrutiny. That is, the state has to give a very good justification for why the law exists. But the anti-gay-rights side argues that there should be no "special rights" for gays -- that they aren't a protected class.

So if gays aren't a protected class, then any law that discriminates them has to meet only a "rational basis" level of review. Well, then, what is the rational basis for disallowing any American citizen the legal benefits of a state-recognized marriage (e.g., the option for file taxes jointly, default inheritance laws, or the hundreds of other state and federal perks you can qualify for if married)? The law would have to be rationally related to any legitimate government interest.

Is there a legitimate government interest in preventing gay people from marrying? The groups defending the California ballot measure focus on childbearing (which raises the question of why seniors are permitted to marry). Others may focus on defrauding the government (but I personally know two opposite-sex couples who got married solely for health insurance, and one of the couples involved a military spouse).

Never mind the general conservative and libertarian call for smaller government interference in one's life.

Long story short, it's hard to both be intellectually honest and also argue against gay marriage.

Popular posts from this blog

Yoga

I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Interesting:
Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…