Wednesday, September 1, 2010

An Independent Conservative's View of Gay Marriage


I am quite pleased today. I had determined some time back, when California's Prop 8 again placed the issue of same sex marriage forefront on the American stage of morality, to pen an article on the issue. The article was to be a view from an independent conservative. I decided after several hours of work to submit it to The Daily Caller. Yesterday afternoon they notified me they were publishing my op-ed article. My first. 

In what I suppose is an act of self promotion I bring my article to the pages of Rational Nation USA

Excerpt:

California’s Proposition 8 has once again brought the issue of gay marriage onto the national stage.  It is likely headed to the Supreme Court, which, to me, seems crazy. After all, why should it take the High Court to decide an issue that the government should not be concerned with in the first place?

Intolerance is often on display on both sides of the ideological spectrum — intolerance to pursue one’s own happiness, free from the constraints of the state, continues to plague America. A vision and desire of some individuals to peaceably live their lives as they see fit is dismissed out of hand by those who are intolerant or fearful of that which they do not understand.

The justification for the inequities 
gays and lesbians experience is primarily based on religion and tradition. Given modern societies’ enlightened views, it seems only rational to question what seems to be a Dark Ages mentality with respect to the issue of gay marriage.

As I said the article was to be views on same sex unions from an independent conservative and Libertarian perspective. In building the rationale for my position I relied on America's most enduring documents.

For the rest of the article please visit The Daily Caller.

What do you think? Any and all comments are welcome.

Thank you,

Les Carpenter III
Editor in 
Chief
Rational Nation USA

17 comments:

  1. Logic has a funny way of leading one to one and only one outcome, if it is truly logic.

    This is one issue where conservatives pander to the masses on that is totally illogical and against their professed beliefs.

    I kind of like Silverfiddle's sneaky solution: The government no longer recognizes marriage and rather leave that to religious institutions.

    That would mean that our government and our legal institutions could no longer grant divorces because the dissolution of a marriage, being that marriage is a religious creation could only be granted by religious institutions.

    Government and our legal system could dissolve "civil unions" but not marriages.

    Since some religions do not recognize divorce that would mean that the concept of marriage would most likely cease to exist among hetrosexuals due to the fact that a divorce would be an impossibility.

    So, one could dissolve their "civil union" and not their "marriage"

    Imagine what the adultery rate would be in this country?

    ReplyDelete
  2. possible typo: "less unemotional way"

    ReplyDelete
  3. PYour logic is flawed, les.

    Homosexuals have the same rights as any other person. stop confusing sexual orientation with gender. marriage is a gender based collective. and collectives have no rights only individuals do.

    and in any collective that a person wishes to a member of have certain rules that each individual must abide by.

    we as citizens of this nation recognize this as members of this huge collective. any person who seeks to be a member of this nation must agree to abide by the restrictions of this collective.

    the same is true with the smallest of collectives also. and the smallest of collectives is a marriage of two persons.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Griper...

    As a "collective" we have agreed that our government shall not discriminate nor shall it show preferential treatment in regards to its policies.

    When same sex individuals who cohabitate do not enjoy the same tax benefits or the legal protection of their assets as do opposite sex individuals who cohabitate then obviously this is discriminatory and goes against the founding principles of this great big collective.

    At one time this great big collective had 'rules' that stated that women could not vote and were inferior to men and they believed that the black man was only 3/5th of a white man.

    Those were the rules of the collective.

    Now, society may have a vested interest in the cohabitation and reproduction of the species through mating of the opposite sex but that has nothing to do with "marriage" of one male and one female. We obviously could outlaw monogomy and rather enforce polygomy.

    One does not elect to be a member of a collective...you are born an American it is not something that you choose.

    Further, a collective is not a constant, if it was then we would still be a member of the British Crown collective.

    Thats the dynamics of society

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tao,
    "When same sex individuals who cohabitate do not enjoy the same tax benefits or the legal protection of their assets as do opposite sex individuals who cohabitate then obviously this is discriminatory and goes against the founding principles of this great big collective."

    a flawed argument.

    if what you say is true then it is the laws in regards to those benefits that must be declared unconstitutional, not the laws of marriage. it is those laws that discriminate not the laws of marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tao,
    "One does not elect to be a member of a collective...you are born an American it is not something that you choose."

    stop taking my words out of context just to promotee your viewpoint. i said;

    "any person who seeks to be a member of this nation must agree to abide by the restrictions of this collective."

    that is far different than what you implied i said.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What "Laws of Marriage"?

    Does the constitution have any Laws of Marriage?

    I did not take words out of your mouth....according to what you said that would only apply to those seeking citizenship not those who were born citizens.

    Thus your statement applies to a very small minority.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Basically Griper you need to come right out and argue for "natural order" or for a "higher law than man."

    Basically you want to argue that marriage, where a male and a female join in holy matrimony, is an option that is available to anyone and even to those in society who are not attracted to the opposite sex.

    In reality you have now cheapened the meaning of marriage to the point that it is nothing but a quick way to some tax credits and legal protections.

    You are arguing that if you want the benefits no one is stopping you from enjoying those benefits: As long as you marry someone of the opposite sex.

    If that is not satisfactory then your argument is for them to move...or seek out another collective.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tao,
    "Does the constitution have any Laws of Marriage?"

    and which constitution are you asking about, Tao?
    We are a nation whose governments are restricted in their powers by 51 constitutions
    ---------------
    as for the rest of your arguement, nice try at changing the subject. that only shows that youi failed to prove your point based on your previous premises.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So, where again do the laws of marriage come from?

    Share with us Griper...


    I did not change the topic...I just took your logic to its logical conclusion...

    You want to make a statement and then have it stand unquestioned...You like to run around blogs and question everyone elses logic and make your statements then you move on...

    Now, states can define marriage as between a man and a woman...but that would mean the the tax laws and the legal issues in regards inheritance and so on and so forth are discriminatory...

    By the way, an individual can be a RESIDENT of a particular state but only a citizen of a nation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Les!

    Firstly, thank you for sending me the link to the Daily Caller article via email. I am very happy for you that you have been allowed to post there, as it is a credible conservative site and reaches a HUGE audience! Nicely done, sir!
    In the email you asked for my thoughts on what you said. I am now able to take the time to properly respond. Thank you for giving me such a consideration, by the way. I am honored by this.
    Okay, so...."gay marriage". I use quotations because to me, "gay marriage" is not reality. It is a concept, an abominable concept, created by men who like kissing men and by women who want to be men and by their liberal representatives who wish to appease their voter base. Marriage, by even a dullard's definition, is between a man and a woman.
    While it is true I am a Conservative, I need to clarify the particular "flavor" of Conservatism I flow in. I am a Moral Conservative. To me there are different "streams" of Conservatism. You have "fiscal Conservatives", "moral Conservatives", "social Conservatives", "Christian Conservatives", "political Conservatives", and Conservatives who are what they are simply because they hate liberalism. I'm sure there are more styles out there. (This is just a theory of mine. I have no concrete proof or evidence to confirm this label-making of mine.)
    I believe that you, sir, are definitely a Conservative.
    However, speaking solely for myself, and for no one else, I believe you are a "political Conservative", meaning you want the government to get it together and do what it is supposed to do in terms of proper governance. I, on the other hand, am a "moral Conservative", meaning that there are certain issues I cannot and will not compromise on as relating to our government. I fully and openly confess that my particular style of Conservatism makes me an all-or-nothing kind of guy.
    To the issue of "gay marriage", I do not believe it is harmless or without consequence. I understand that governance is governance and social issues are social issues, and they really should never cross paths, but that would be naive of me to think our government will be silent about "gay marriage". Given that the current occupier of The White House is of the progressive/socialist/liberal/America-hating persuasion, I know he will jump at the chance to make sure the homosexuals get preferential treatment, all the while fomenting a "victim mentality" to guilt all the moderate Democrats to see his viewpoint.

    But I digress.

    Les, I cannot agree with your well-written article regarding "gay marriage". I don't have to tell you that this is not personal, and I do not think you are a fool, idiot, moron, or dunderhead for having your personal beliefs about this issue. We have spoken on the phone with one another, more than once. I respect you.

    However, in this issue, I must respectfully disagree with you.

    If I were libertarian, I would probably shrug my shoulders at the mention of "gay marriage" and not make a fuss about it. I am not libertarian, though. I am a moral Conservative. Homosexuality, to me, is immoral. Hence, I am against it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. CONTINUED--
    (I had to do this in 2 posts because it was too big!)

    I do not see it as harmless or non-threatening to America. It will spread like a sexual disease, no pun intended, and become woven into the tapestry of America while being protected by those who feel it is "no big deal". Does the name Ken Jennings ring any bells? People on the outside thought it was no big deal that he is a homosexual and now in charge of curriculums in our public schools. Do you remember what he was pushing as a curriculum for kids? I do. I didn't think it was harmless.

    If Joey wants to "marry" Billy and live happily ever after and have a house together and an insurance policy and even adopt kids, and it is all condoned under the auspices of "tolerance and enlightenment", sans God, I see great disaster coming.

    Sorry if I was rambling, Les.

    Anyhoos, thank you again for allowing me the freedom to speak openly and to publicly disagree with you with no strings attached. We agree to disagree. And it's not the end of the world.
    Long Live the Republic, Les. You keep on keepin' on, sir!
    Donald Borsch Jr.
    http://www.christiancommentator.wordpress.com/

    ReplyDelete
  13. no tao,
    you did not take my logic to its logical conclusion. you used a fallacy called "jumping to a conclusion" with your assertions.

    and you are the one that asked if marriage was in the constitution and that i cannot answer until you tell me which constitution you are referring to.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Don,

    Thank you for responding.

    A decidedly thorny issue. One that likely will remain so. Arguments on both side have merit.

    As gay's and lesbian's do not typically "choose" their orientation (as in the classical understanding of choice)then I question how it is, if one is a believer, that they are not entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals. Including the same acceptance as those of Gods chidren who are heterosexual.

    In my closing to the article...

    "Our Declaration of Independence, in its opening words proclaims that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

    No one questions gay people’s right to life. But what about their right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Are they free to enter into loving relationships and receive the same benefits that opposite-sex couples receive?

    No, gay people are not free to enjoy the same benefits individuals in opposite-sex unions enjoy. Yes, their happiness is affected by this reality. Anyone who holds up the Declaration of Independence as a guiding document of our Republic must stand behind its words.

    The Constitution is a contract between the people and their government. One of its primary aims is to protect vulnerable minorities from the tyranny of the majority. This is of particular note in California, where voters rejected gay marriage at the ballot box. Can a majority deny an individual the right to peaceably live his life as he sees fit?

    My simple answer is no. If your answer is yes, then who is to say that your lifestyle, religion, or ethos will not be next?

    In my view remaining true to the principals of our founding documents requires that I am steadfast in my intellectual understanding of the words contained therein.

    I have come to the conclusion labels are restrictive. Perhaps it is why I use the independent conservative/libertarian discription. Or perhaps a more accurate description of myself would be; "a fiscal conservative with a strong belief in the benefits of limited consitutional government and maximum idividual freedom and liberty."

    Anyhow, I hope all is going well with you, and as always it is pleasure. The respect Don is without a doubt mutual.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "In my view remaining true to the principals of our founding documents requires that I am steadfast in my intellectual understanding of the words contained therein."

    as am i les.
    -------------
    "Can a majority deny an individual the right to peaceably live his life as he sees fit?"

    ayn rand says that only individuals have rights not collectives. and the reason being is that collectives have power over individuals. which brings us to marriage.
    just as the individual is the smallest of minorities, marriage is the smallest of collectives.
    this is not a question of the rights of the individual, it is a question of declaring that a collective has rights.

    i would suggest reading my whole series on this issue. i did about 5 posts to address all of the issues in it. beginning with this one

    http://griper-of-usa.blogspot.com/2010/08/laws-of-marriage-unjust-discrimination.html

    i would also suggest reading my post on collectives here too;

    http://griper-of-usa.blogspot.com/2010/08/power-of-collective-necessitates-rights.html

    ReplyDelete
  16. Griper - I shall check out your series.

    ReplyDelete
  17. TAO, as always, your an idiot. There is not enough time in the day to respond to the unlimited stupidity that flows from your key board.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.