A conservative's view of gay marriage..

[Heyo]

Hey all. (hopefully this thread wont get locked, different tone than the other gay marriage threads)

Since I am a conservative (mostly) I thought some of you more liberal folks might be interested hearing a point of view from the other side.

Now, I normally don't talk about politics on DU, because I don't want to get banned, and I have made it up to 250 posts. I am not a 'disruptor' or a 'freeper' BTW. But, I am conservative. It's yall's board, though, and I respect that.

Anyway, I usually try to keep as up to date as possible on what's going on in the world from as many sources as I can. But I have to admit when I first started hearing about this debate, my first reaction was "gays can't get married?" I guess I just always assumed they could get married, and since I'm not gay I never really thought about it much. Honestly I really don't see what the big deal is. I guess I don't get the argument that same-sex couples being married affects other hetero marriages. I am willing to listen with an open mind to the anti gay marriage argument, but I just ain't feelin' it, homie...

Now let's take a look at this proposed amendment. For a person like myself with true conservative values, the idea of amending the constitution for a reason like this makes me cringe! How can that be considered a "conservative" position? Amending the constitution with regard to the subject of marriage? What?!

That is not the conservatism that I am familiar with. The conservatism that I am familiar with is basically: get off everyone's back, interfere with the lives of the people as little as possible and let the free market do it's thing. I don't see where adding an amendment to the Constitution preventing gays from marrying fits into that.

Heyo

[wicket]

1. Well said

Hear hear! :)

[Skittles]

2. in case you haven't noticed

the "real conservatives" are an endangered species; the GOP has been hijacked by a bunch of fascist thugs, with the support of "real conservatives".

[pnb]

3. I pretty much feel the same as you do on this issue

Its just none of their business who people want to marry...and they actually do this while claiming to be a "party of small government."

[distortionmarshall]

lol - pretty words but......

you'll still vote for bush, right?

lol - republicans are always so well-spoken....

[Heyo]

29. Well..

It's quite likely (not certain) that I will...

Even so.. can we not find some common ground on some things, and agree to disagree on others?

Heyo

[MAlibdem]

59. Please!

That (apparently) is how democracy is actually supposed to work.

Things are a bit to polarized, in my view.

You can vote for Bush, but i think the community of people who support gay marraige would be happy to have you either way. I think it's sort of silly this is a party issue.

I respect true conservatives because at least their ideology is logical-it flows, it is truthful. Not my cup of tea, but I can respect it as a system of beliefs. That's what really makes me angry about the Bush administration. There is no flow of ideology except for money and power. What is the point of power if it isn't used to help people? The concept is beyond me.

[emanymton]

4. Here Is A Clue. You Are A Liberal ...

who only thinks he is otherwise.

The issue is very simple. The issue is EQUAL RIGHTS. What is the question?


Bush Lied, People Died, Media Cheered

[Heyo]

28. I think based on where I stand...

..on a lot of the other issues, you wouldn't call me a liberal.

I don't actually mean so much to identify myself as 'conservative'.. but for the purposes of DU, that best describes me I suppose. Just for full disclosure.

I am an independant, with views on the issues that may or may not follow any particular party's lines... a lot of my views do happen to coincide with conservatism. I am not down with the idea of going with a politcal party and toeing the line just because. If a party's views match mine, fine, but I look at the issues.

Heyo

[emanymton]

61. I Won't Call You Anything ...

names and labels do not have much meaning, especially in US politics. Simple answers are for simple people.

Each person has multiple reasons for his/her opinion, none of which is not changeable.

Bush Lied, People Died, Media Cheered

[Goldmund]

5. Aren't you more a libertarian...

...than a conservative?

It's been a long time since conservatives in this country believed in the "get off everyone's back" philosophy. "Conservatives" in this country believe in social conservativism and fiscal conservativism. The former consists of legislating based on what they deem Christian values, and the latter is corporate perks disguised as "free market capitalism".

How are you a conservative?

[Heyo]

30. That wouldn't be the first time...

... that someone described me as a libertarian....

A agree with libertarians on alot of things, that's true....in fact I'm not 100% sure of everything that a pure Libertarian entails.... so I will hold off judgment on that one...

good point though...

One thing that I can say though, is that I am a die-hard capitalist. I am not knocking anyone else's economic philosophy, but any type of 'collectivist' system, be it socialism, communism, etc.. goes against pretty much everything I believe in. To each his own I guess. By the way, I DO believe in taxing people and providing necessities to help people get by who need it... but I am against the 'welfare state' Needless to say I'm not a fan of Marx.

To each his own, I s'pose.

Heyo

[scottxyz]

33. Do you like the US healthcare system?

We spend about $4,000 a year on healthcare and get worse results than Canada (they live 2 years longer on average), where they spend about $2,000 a year on healthcare.

Good for capital, bad for people.

[Heyo]

44. The US healthcare system needs lots of work...

The basic premise that I would hope for is a mix of private and public health care, not unlike what we have now but a system that works better. Privatized for those people who want it and can afford it... but nobody should ever be denied basic health care in a country as rich as the USA. But I am against doing away with privatized health care altogether... because I don't think governments are in generally good at stuff.. whatever they are doing, they tend not to be very good it it.

I know I said I was a die-hard capitalist, and I stand by that... the one area that I tolerate a *bit* of socialist type tendencies is in the health care department...

Because, we are not a third world country.. we can afford it.

I wouldn't raise taxes to do it, though.. I would keep the tax cuts...

Me personally I would drastically slash the drug-war funding to pay for health care.. (and I mean drastically, like by 75 percent.. even end it completely)

I would also put in place the malpracice limits, the caps on settlements for malpracice, but then to balance that out to try and keep doctors in line, have very severe non-financial penalties if they are negligent.. to help protect the patients.. (Im talking loss of license, even jail for the most aggregious negligence)

This will drive down the cost of insurance, and drive down the cost of seeing doctors and what not...

Heyo

[Goldmund]

38. "Welfare state" is a neocon propaganda concept.

It has never existed anywhere. Not trying to degrade what you're saying, I'm only saying that you need to define it before we can talk about it, since it has no tangible and specific definition.

"One thing that I can say though, is that I am a die-hard capitalist. I am not knocking anyone else's economic philosophy, but any type of 'collectivist' system, be it socialism, communism, etc.. goes against pretty much everything I believe in. To each his own I guess. By the way, I DO believe in taxing people and providing necessities to help people get by who need it... but I am against the 'welfare state' Needless to say I'm not a fan of Marx."

So tell me one thing -- how are you different from, say, FDR?

[Heyo]

45. I must confess....

I don't know much about FDR.

(I am only 28, it's a tad before my time, and I'm less up on historyic politics than I am on current politics)

Willing to learn though.

Heyo

[Goldmund]

56. I turned 29 two weeks ago.

So listen to your elders: read up on FDR's economic policies (Google would be a good start) and see if you still call yourself a conservative. :)

[jmowreader]

54. There is a difference

between a libertarian and a Libertarian.

Members of the Libertarian Party of the United States (upper-case Libertarians) are actually fairly far to the right; they sit somewhere between Goldwater and Reagan. Look at their positions; the only difference between the Libertarian Party and the Republican Party is that someone running on the Republican ticket can actually get elected.

Lower-case libertarians are also conservative, but it's the old-time conservatism the Republicans left behind in their mad dash to embrace Falwell and Robertson's supporters.

You, sir, are a lower-case libertarian.

I don't think there's such a thing as a pure political stance anymore. I believe in the right to keep and bear arms (within reason, of course; most people don't need to own a machine gun) and I believe that if the crime is heinous enough and that there is no question as to the identity of the person who did it, the death penalty is also justified. I believe in a strong defense. I believe in secure borders. I believe in patriotism. I also believe in universal healthcare, a living wage, that Wal-Mart serves no useful function whatsoever, abolition of marijuana prohibition...

[truthspeaker]

6. thanks for your POV

It lines up with what I view as the classic definition of "conservative".

It's amazing how successfully the Reaganites have been at co-opting the term "conservative". Everytime I hear someone describe the GOP as being for "small government", "reduced government spending", and "personal responsibility" I wonder what cave they have been living in for the past 24 years.

Good luck taking your political party back (or starting a new one)!

[HFishbine]

7. Amen

I was listening to Rush today and I found myself wondering, what does the word "conservative" mean anymore? It certainly doesn't mean what it once did -- what you describe. I now think the word is misused when applied to the Bush administration. We need a new word or phrase to describe Bush's views so that the word conservative can regain it's true meaning.

[NuckinFutz]

11. We already do..

It's called fascism.

'Course, a few others come to mind...stupidity, greed, narrowmindedness...

I got it... the "Everybody's wrong but me" party.

[HFishbine]

13. Fascism

doesn't really encompass his cultrual bias. Neo-fundementalist?

[NuckinFutz]

20. That's pretty good

Neo-fundamentalism...that would be promoting the fear and persecution of anyone 'not like us'. I like it.

[varun]

8. in a way, Marriage is a conservative idea..

...but its funny that the so called conservatives are against gay marriages :eyes:

[bowens43]

9. Wow!

There ARE reasonable conservatives ;-)

I always wondered about the 'it will destroy traditional marriage ' argument. I have heard it again and again yet no one has been able to tell me exactly HOW it will destroy traditional marriage.

[Heyo]

32. Same here...

I've heard a lot of hollering about how it will destroy marriage as we know it. No one seems to know HOW exactly this will happen.

Hmmm.

Heyo

[NuckinFutz]

10. It doesn't appear

to be 'your' conservative party anymore. Where social/religious issues are concerned, this administration has hijacked the Republican party and driven it down a road to ruin.

[YNGW]

12. If same-sex marriage is permitted in one state...

... does that mean that every other state has to recognize it?

If that's the case, that seems to be the rub. That the people of one state can dictate to every other state what is and is not marriage doesn't sound like it would work. Sooner or later, some state will pass a law that most other states are against, but based upon the same premise will be forced to accept.

[HFishbine]

14. That's where the Defense of Marriage Act comes in

It says that states do not have to recognize marriages from other states that don't comply with their definitions of marriage.

[YNGW]

16. But I've heard people here say they think DOMA is unconstitutional.

If it were, where would that leave us? Right back at the post you responded to, that being that every state must accept it, and sooner or later a state is going to pass something Dem dominated states consider wrong but will be forced to accept.

Gotta run. Will check back later.

[mondo joe]

25. This has ever been the case - why a problem now?

THis isn't something new.

Stats have always had to recognize each other's marriages.

Why is it now a bad thing when it was always a good or neutral thing before?

[YNGW]

36. Because...

... the people in some states are not going to appreciate having to accept marriage being defined for them by another state 3000 miles away. States were originally designed to be their own independent entitys, as a country is able to contract with other countries, etc... The states were united for common issues, i.e. common defense. It was never meant for the laws of one state to supercede the laws of another state.

Currently, all states recognize marriage between a man and a woman, so there is no issue between the states. However, if one state changes that law, it will cause problems if other states do not want to change the law but are being forced to do so. That's why it's an issue.

[Pithlet]

40. We're talking about civil rights, here.

States should not have the ability to opt out when it comes to such issues. We are all Americans and are entitled to equal treatment, regardless of the state we live in. States do not get to enforce their own versions of equal under the law.

[YNGW]

41. Well...

Other states should not be able to define issues for other states.

Like I said, it looks pretty now. But down the line some state is going to pass a law and use the same argument, that it involves equal treatment for everyone, and it's not going to be something most people aren't going to like, including you and me, but we'll be forced to go along. It's just a matter of time. But, once the cat is out of the bag, it's not gonna go back in.

I believe leaving it up to the states, as the framers intented, is the best way to appraoch this. Otherwise, hopefully the USA will come crashing down real soon before it engulfs us all.

[Pithlet]

48. The President

is trying to make it so that no one, in ANY state, can get married to the one they love unless that person happens to be of the opposite sex. But, that is beside the point; let's stick to this "states rights" argument.

States do not have the right to discriminate against the American citizens that happen to live in their borders, or allow it to happen. Because they've been allowed to do so all this time against homosexuals does not let them off the hook. Is is about time we all stood up against this discrimination and said enough is enough. You don't become more or less of an American depending on what state you live in. States can pass their own laws, and have their own constitutions, but there is one constitution looming over them all. There are certain things that aren't determined at a state level. Issues pertaining to civil rights is one of them.

I am not for equal rights for all because it looks pretty. I'm for them because I demand them as a citizen of this country. And I demand them for everyone else, regardless of the state they live in. We allow states to decide how American citizens should be treated with respect to their race, sex, gender, and sexual orientation, and we are no longer a free country.

[northernsoul]

52. probably not

The "full faith and credit" clause in the constitution is generally interpreted to mean that states have to respect the laws and confered legal statuses of other states, but marriage appears to be an exception as there are series of court cases holding that no state necessarily has to recognize another's marriage (and there are several states that won't recognize a Nevada marriage license).
I think that before Loving v. Virginia (1967), the U.S. was a patchwork of states that would or wouldn't recognize inter-racial marriages.

[proud patriot]

15. Thanks for sharing

I completely agree

[VOX]

17. Whatever happened to the conservative cry against "bigger government?"

Seems to me that our current right-wing government has gone out of its way to make itself bigger in the most appalling ways.

Never have our personal freedoms been so infringed upon or endangered.

Heyo, I appreciate your post very much, and your nice way of thinking things through on your own. Your opinions have value, and you can do some real good for your country -- so I urge you to reevaluate where you stand in terms of the political spectrum.

Maybe a change of self-definition is in order for you. Who knows, you may be a progressive already!

Thanks -- :toast:

[JackDragna]

18. You should be aware now..

..that Bush and his supporters are not classic American conservatives. Most of them have no strong ideological bent other than to acquire and keep power and wealth. Their kind has hijacked the Republican party and isn't about to give it back. I strongly urge you to vote for other parties. It may be a bit before you're a Democrat or even left-leaning, but at least don't support the Republican party, as they now trash pretty much anything you hold dear.

[denverbill]

19. I welcome your thoughts, but I think you misrepresent conservatism.

Conservatism is all about tradition. The very essense of conservatism is preserving traditional values. Conservatives since the dawn of time have opposed not only gay marriage but homosexuality itself, not to mention all other forms of 'sodomy'. It's pretty difficult to enforce laws against sodomy and at the same time get govt off the people's back.

It's exactly the same with abortion. You can't very well outlaw abortion without enforcing the ban, which would require a massive police state intrusion into every woman's medical records.

As someone else stated, I think you are expressing libertarianism more than conservatism. Conservatives may want the govt out of their pocketbooks, but they definitely want cops in the bedroom.

[Heyo]

31. I dont want the cops in the bedroom....

Or in anyone's private lives whatsoever.....

I believe in traditions... like family, decency, morality, all that good stuff. But only in the context of how I strive to live my own life... not in the context of forcing others to behave the same way.

I believe in the old school patriotism, the flag, etc.... but that's all my personal choices, and nothing more.

You can't legislate morality... but you can strive for it in your own way, whatver you perceive as moral... as long as you respect other's rights to do the same.

Heyo

[denverbill]

47. Nobody here will disagree with that.

But I disagree that that is 'normal' conservatism. Look at the conservative leadership in this country. How did Rick Santorum feel about the sodomy law in Texas being struck down? How about the conservative judges dissenting opinions?

It's liberal to not legislate morality. It's what differentiates libertarians from conservatives. Libertarians believe in maximum economic and social freedom. Liberals believe in maximum social freedom and some economic restrictions. Conservatives believe in maximum economic freedom and some social restrictions.

Social mores changes over time. In 1890, mentioning sex was probably a jailable offense. If conservatives had had their way from 1890 til today, there would have been no 'liberalization' of the laws towards sex or sexuality.

Conservatives were appalled in the 1960's with the liberal/radical hippies and free-love, bra-burning feminists.

I don't doubt that you believe in a laissez-faire attitude towards morality. But I can't accept that it's a conservative attitude, because it's plainly not.

[Renew Deal]

21. There is a difference between real conservatives and Bushco

That's the problem. Those guys are radical theocrats.

[sendero]

22. This is...

... not a liberal/conservative issue IMHO, it is a religious issue.

Personally, I think it will be very difficult to get a constitutional amendment passed. They can try, that is their right - but it is going to take a herculean effort.

[markus]

23. Amendment would also restrict contract rights of gays as well

Its the "all the pertaining to marriage" restriction that is scary. This could ban civil unions, and even some of the domestic partner benefits that have become as common as any other feature of most major corporations benefit plans.

It restricts commerce in ways that are probably contrary to the constitution's intent on the promotion of commerce, and will in fact promote a set of particular religious tenants over commerce.

Look for somebody in the right-wing to make the connection and start answering that argument with one about slavery, commerce and morality.

[Synthesis]

24. I think you are absolutely correct from one point of view

But from two others, the republican stance on gay marriage (not the constitutional amendment that bush is proposing, but the general position that we shouldn't have them) is a conservative position. The problem is that whether or not a position is conservative depends both on the status of the law itself, and on the values of the society as a whole.

A position can be conservative in regards to law if it seeks to limit additional government regulation. In this sense, a "ban" on gay marriage is not a conservative, because it creates additional law. But if the existence of marriage as a legal concept is itself due to legislation, and the inclusion of gays into this legal concept would constitute additional legislation (by broadening the possibilities for what constitutes a legal union of 2 individuals), thus making the opposition of gay marriage a conservative position. I don't know the specifics of marriage law, and the press is never exactly clear on them, so I don't know which of these two possibilities is the correct one.

Turning now to values, a position is conservative in relation to values if it seeks to preserve the status quo in terms of the general perception of what society finds valuable. If the majority of society opposes gay marriage, then technically that stance is a conservative position (there is a difficulty with this, in that many conservatives are "stuck in the past"--they favor values that were once popular but have now become a minority). If the legal status of gay marriage itself permits gay marriage, and there is a general push for it by a significant portion of society, then conservatives are faced with a dillema: should a conservative stance towards the law be violated in order to serve the conservative stance towards a value? If this is the case in society today, then I would speculate that, with his amendment, Bush seems to be banking on the assumption that most conservatives favor the latter over the former, at least in this particular case and its implications. We will see, come election time, whether or not that assumption proves correct.

By the way, there is an interesting and inversely correlative interpretation of the term "progressive" that can be treated in the same way as I have treated the term "conservative." I'd be happy to write this up in a seperate topic if anyone is interested--one of my main intellectual interests is the philosophical differences between progressives and conservatives, and I enjoy sharing my conclusions with progressives and conservatives alike.

[Heyo]

26. Wow!

Thanks for the replies everyone! 26 responses came in pretty quick.

I am working today so my time online will be a little sporadic...

However, I look forward to responding to a lot of the replies as soon as I get a few extra minutes....

Thanks again, folks, for having an open mind...

:toast:

Heyo

[tom_paine]

27. Hi, Heyo...and thanks for the honesty!

I'm pretty moderate myself (full disclosure: a left-centrist, to be sure, but progun and several other conservative viewpoints on certain subjects), though quite angrily radicalized by the actions taen by the Imperial family Bush and their Stooges.

But the Imperial Family Bush has NEVER been "conservative", such as traditional icons such as Goldwater or McCain.

Not even close. Know what Barry Goldwater said to DeLay, Gingrich and the rest of the Imperial Stooges on his deathbed?

"In the future, please do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you have hurt the Republican Party far worse than the Democrats ever could."
--Barry Goldwater

Amen Barry.

The Busheviks, as you have wisely noted are NOT conservatives. They are Totalitarians and their "principles" (as you have noticed) are chimeric and chameleonic.

Busheviks believe in power. They will do anything, tell any lie, to achieve it and keep it.

Busheviks believe in bigger government, so long as it's for Soviet-style surveillance.

I don't honestly think the Busheviks like Americans and they sure don't like honest democracy. Given their penchant for Soviet-style surveillance and Soviet-lite style recriminiation for political enemies, I think they rather admire them, but just disagree with their rationale for their tyranny (better Free-Market Stalinism for the Imperials, if you get my meaning).

I agree more with that brand of conservatism than the Imperial Family Bush.

[ulysses]

34. yeah, you sound libertarian to me.

I'll bet that we disagree pretty flatly on economic issues (and I'm looking forward to having that discussion with you some time) but your feelings about gay marriage are more than welcome.

[ComerPerro]

35. That is what I am guessing too

Libertarain seems more likely

[Heyo]

46. Hi...

"I'll bet that we disagree pretty flatly on economic issues (and I'm looking forward to having that discussion with you some time) "

Bring it on!!!

(:D .. I mean that in a lighthearted way of course.. I enjoy a good debate.. when the time is right maybe we will go there.)

:toast: ulysses

Heyo

[Solomon]

37. Excellent Post.

(Bowing solemnly)

:headbang:

[x-g.o.p.er]

39. From one "conservative" to another...

Well said. And I would stongly urge you to reconsider your support for Bush. How can one be considered a "compassionate conservative" for puposely trying to deny civil rights to one group through a constitutional amendment? It is neither compassionate, nor conservative, and should be an affront to all conservatives, IMHO.

And I don't think we can be considered conservative anymore. At least not in the way the "conservatives" label themselves. Like it or not, we're Libertarian leaning towards Progressive on many issues.

[Terran]

42. On the flip side, I'm just wondering...

...do you support the idea that gay people ought to be treated equally under the law when it comes to marriage and the economic benefits derived therefrom?

It seems to me that in a way, this a position compatible with traditional conservatism. You treat everybody the same, stay out of their private lives, and order governmental affairs in the most minimal way possible. Recognizing these rights for gay people is by far the simplest way to extend this equality to all our citizens. And there is no cost involved to speak of (possibly the rewting of a few statutes that already refer to "men and women"); in fact, there is money to be *made* by it. It would be a healthy thing, from a capitalist standpoint (all those marriage celebrations injecting money into the service sector).

Dirk

[Heyo]

43. Yes....

What you said doesn't even warrant much of a reply. Because it's so dead-on correct, there's hardly room for one.

Heyo

[Terran]

58. Wow, cool

I must admit, I am impressed with your ability to see reason! Welcome to DU, belatedly.

Dirk

[Orangepeel]

49. No true conservative can be happy with bush

not only the idea of amending the constitution in an attempt to impose morality, but also the huge deficits, pre-emptive war for non-defense purposes and nation building, the intrusiveness of the patriot act, . . . what happened to smaller government?

[northernsoul]

50. hey ya, heyo!

Well stated and welcome aboard!

I'm afraid that your entirely honorable brand of rock-ribbed "that's ok, Uncle Sam, I can get along without you on this one" conservatism went away along with Barry Goldwater. In my book, the Republican party officially has nothing to do with limited government, individual autonomy, deference to local authority, or consitutional and judicial restraint anymore. You sound like you've got your thinkin' cap on - I look forward to hearing more from your side of the fence going forward.

[wellstone_democrat]

57. This is the GOP I grew up with

I often think of my grandfather who was a staunch Republican and big state/national donor. He was more of a "hands off" Goldwater conservative who thought McCarthy in the 50s was nuts. His verdict:
"the great thing about America is that you can believe in any nutty thing you want to."

I look at this crowd of thugs and pirates and cringe

[Scottie72]

51. Great post

You might want to reconsider your own self labeling. I do agree with you 100%. This is actually a very conservative point of view that gay and lesbian persons should want to get married. You mean they want to settle down? Do you mean they want to have a monogomous relationship?

We can't win, they get mad at us because when we have too many partners and then get mad at us when we only want one partner. Most of the gay friends I have are the LTR type and do not have nightly one night stands.

[IronLionZion]

53. Please vote Democratic!

Bush's positions fly in the face of many conservative and libertarian values. I know Kerry and Edwards won't match your views perfectly, but if you look at the issues you seem to care about, they are much better than Bush. And remember that what Bush says he will do is often different from what he actually does.

I would strongly urge you to visit their websites:
http://www.johnedwards2004.com/
http://www.johnkerry.com/

Like equal rights, drug war, Patriot Act, health care, etc.

I like free enterprise too but Bush and his buddies have bastardized it. They make themselves richer at your expense and call it free enterprise. Fair trade is better than completely free trade. The American workers need a level playing field against the Asians or they will destroy us.

[Heyo]

55. It's still a good stretch...

between now and November.. we'll see how it goes...

:toast:

Heyo

[leesa]

60. Well good for you as far as staying off people's backs about personal

choices.

The free market thing though...have you noticed that it is a disaster?? People are waaaayy to greedy for unregulated capitalism. I'll bet you don't think other countries' free markets should be as free as ours!

[BradCKY]

62. Good to see ya here.

I am kinda like you in terms of being much more "libertarian" on economics but more socially liberal, not many of us like that here, glad to see ya aboard :)

I was in the "yes" catagory of Bush's approval rating from 9/11 until around spring 2003 (though I wouldn't have voted for him). But now I truly believe that is essential to get him out of the White House.