From David Harsanyi at The Federalist:
I’ve supported same-sex marriage ever since I first heard the idea. And when I became a political columnist in the early 2000s—despite being the “conservative” at a good-sized newspaper—I was the only one at the paper (as far as I can recall) who unequivocally backed gay marriage publicly.
Though I wasn’t gullible enough to believe I’d be persuading many readers, I was gullible enough to believe that my allies in the cause were merely concerned with “equality.”
As we dig out from the avalanche of half-baked platitudes about “love being love” and watch alleged news organizations and the White House adorn themselves in cheerful rainbows, we can look forward to the self-righteous mobs that will be defaming anyone who is reluctant to embrace the state’s new definition of marriage. Love is love, except when a person loves their God and follows the principles of their faith, evidently.
Do a majority of Americans who support gay marriage believe these traditionalists deserve to be treated like unrepentant Klan boosters? Of course, there will always be the obnoxious Puritan, as the quote goes, who loves God with all his soul, but hates his neighbor with all his heart. But, as any honest observer would tell you, there are also many profoundly decent religious people who aren’t filled with enmity, aren’t bigoted, aren’t hateful, but do still hold long-established notions about what marriage should look like.
Yet, here’s how Ben Smith put it when asked about his site’s politicizing:
For Ben Smith, the editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed, same-sex marriage is an issue which does not have sides. On Friday, he told the On Media blog that BuzzFeed’s Twitter avatar was in keeping with its standards guide: “We firmly believe that for a number of issues, including civil rights, women’s rights, anti-racism, and LGBT equality, there are not two sides.”
Tell that to the numerous denominations of Protestantism, or the Orthodox Jews, the Catholic Church, the Mormons, the Muslims, to name just a few, whose religious conception of marriage is antithetical to this secular iteration of marriage. I imagine they have a “side.”
The question is, do a majority of Americans who support gay marriage believe likening these people to racists and misogynists is reasonable? Do they believe that all people must surrender their convictions and endorse the state’s definition?
Take the aggressively confused Amanda Marcotte, who argues that “Rand Paul Would Rather End Marriage Than Share It With Gay People.” Marcotte is referring to Paul’s idea, one that’s common among libertarians—also, famously advocated for by Michael Kinsley—that marriage should no longer be a concern of the state. People would be able to form their own relationships and marry (or not) in whatever church (or not) they desired. They would be able to call their relationships whatever they wanted. They would sign contracts to define the legal parameters of their association.
This solution is probably impractical when we consider the legal complexities of civil marriage. For pundits like Marcotte, though, taking the state out of marriage makes it indistinguishable from eliminating it.
Love is only love after a person takes a blood test and is issued a license by a bureaucrat.GO READ THE WHOLE THING.
Supporting gay marriage is NOT the same isue as compelling those whose religous conscience is mortally offended by this to TAKE PART IN THE MARRIAGE.
Somethingis seriously wrong with those who equate these.
Post a Comment