A Dearth of Details
Because the ‘agitative’ nature of Progressivism has, in large part merged with some odd form of Libertine-fetishism masquerading as ‘Freedom Loving’, we have a newish class of political philosophy. In the interest of being as non-creative as possible, I will name this class: Progressi-tarians. This is one group currently pushing for a conversation about same sex marriage.
What is lacking in this discussion is… well… a discussion.
The ‘conversation’ as it stands generally follows this pattern:
CONSERVATIVE: I am opposed to changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions.
PROGRESSIVE-TARIAN: Racist!!! Oh… I mean… Warmonger!!! Dang….sorry, forgot what we were protesting today…let me look at my sign… Oh….ok … Homophobe!!!!
And that is about as far as it gets.
We also have the opportunists within the Republican Party Elite who leave no bandwagon ‘unjoined’. The new fad among Republican circles is to see how vociferously one can support redefining Marriage to include a homosexual partnership. To (formerly) Conservative (and newly Progressive-ish) Republican elite politicians, this is certainly not an abandonment of principles. For, as it is said, “in order to abandon principles, you have to have them in the first place”. With this crew, the conversation is equally circular:
ELITE REPUBLICAN: This party must be the party of Opportunism… I mean… Opportunity for all. So, we have to support Same-Sex Marriage, because… you know… Young People!
CONSERVATIVE: There is no quantifiable evidence that lack of support for redefining marriage to include same-sex couples is a major (or even minor) reason why 18-25 year olds voted in lockstep for Obama. It is still a divisive issue, just like Abortion… and people will change their minds about it over the years, again, like Abortion.
ELITE REPUBLICAN: uhhh… But, we should support Same-Sex Marriage because… because… Young People!
And that is the general problem. No one really wants to talk about same sex marriage. According to the societal and political elites, it is fait accompli. Opposition to redefining marriage is not just square and horribly unhip… it is now akin to racism or sexism or any other evil –ism that people generally project onto others while they practice them themselves.
Society must give us Conservatives a little grace if we first stare at them a little blankly as they tell us that our traditional position on this issue is not only outdated but morally wrong. This exaggerated shift in public opinion truly has taken us by surprise. You see:
• Less than 20 years ago, Bill Clinton (!) signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law.
• Less than 15 years ago, we were told that civil unions were all that were needed to make sure the government wasn’t discriminating against homosexuals
• Less than 10 years ago, most states were passing laws which codified Marriage in that state as between one man and one woman
• Less than 5 years ago, California (!!) passed a referendum that defined marriage in that state as between a man and a woman.
• Less than 2 years ago, President Obama was officially against same-sex marriage
• Less than 1 (!!!) year ago every major politician from BOTH parties would agree that Marriage should be defined as occurring between one man and one woman
So now, in 2013, all of a sudden, the push to redefine marriage is unstoppable? Federally mandated recognition of Same sex marriage is inevitable?
You must be able to see why what we’ve been told lately has us Conservatives scratching our heads a bit. We watch in bewilderment as every major politician does the Oz-2-Step when asked about same-sex marriage: “Pay no attention to my statements from last year behind that curtain”. It shouldn’t be difficult to see why we have been caught off guard. And it should be understandable why some opponents of marriage redefinition have responded somewhat viscerally.
Call us crazy, but we like to have actual discussions and conversations about things. A Conservative likes to balance emotion with reason and seeks to add to the Great Conversation by convincing others to see things as we do where we can…and politely disagree where we are unable to convince.
It is difficult for us to respond well when we are told we are evil for holding a position that has 2000+ years of civilization building and societal health behind it.
But equally frustrating is the complete lack of a consistent aim or reasoning used by the opponents of the opponents of marriage redefinition.
Ask some and all they can tell you is: “Two people who love each other shouldn’t be kept apart”
There are several arguments against this point… for starters:
• No one is trying to keep people apart
• Pure emotion, unaccompanied by any objective Reason, is never a worthy argument
• If Feelings are the only thing required for a union in Marriage, how can you possibly be against a polygamous ‘marriage’ among multiple, of-age, consenting adults?
Some others (somehow with a straight face) attempt to make an equal protection or equal treatment under the law case for changing the definition of Marriage to include same-sex unions.
There are equally as many arguments against this line as well… to begin with:
• Even the most anarchy-admiring extreme Libertarian has to understand that the National State has a compelling interest to allow the people (through State Governments) to choose for themselves what is meant by Marriage in each State
• A Federal Mandate to redefine marriage to include same sex unions would necessarily have to infringe upon the first amendment freedoms that are protected for both individual believers and the corporate assemblies of believers
• There is absolutely no legal justification for allowing consenting same sex unions to be redefined as marriage and yet still outlawing consenting adult polygamous arrangements
The polygamy rebuttal shows up in almost all refutations of pro-redefining marriage arguments because it truly is compelling. It most certainly is not a rhetorically questionable ‘slippery slope’ argument. It is simply following the internal logic of all marriage redefinition arguments to their necessary end.
Bear in mind, again, that Progressives said in no uncertain terms that Homosexual Civil Unions would never, ever, ever lead to the demand that we label homosexual partnerships as Marriage. Just like we are being told now that tweaking the definition if marriage to include homosexual unions will never, ever, ever lead to any further deviations from what Marriage has meant for the past few millennia.
To borrow a phrase from my Southern friends, ‘That dog don’t hunt’.
Truth is, we don’t even know what you all want. You are screaming pretty loud, but there is a dearth of details in your whining.
It’s not really Same Sex Marriage that you want. You can basically have that with civil unions in the states that provide for that.
The only thing that seems to be your real aim is to force folks to accept homosexuality itself. And it’s not just acceptance in a live and let live kind of way. You seem to want to eradicate any negative feelings or beliefs towards homosexuality. So, at its core, this current rush towards federally mandating same sex marriage is nothing more than a Thought Police enforcing action.
We are still going to fight you on this, but you can at least be honest about your aims.