Briefly. I am very conservative. I am a registered libertarian,(although i do not like Ron Paul because 1.he's a phony 2.I am not an isolationist. 3. he is a racist 4.his foreign policy can only be explained by the fact that he is an anti-semite) I got my conservatism honestly, I was raised by liberals and when i was young i was a registered democrat who voted for Bill Clinton twice. When i began debating politics online i did well, because i am very clever, but soon realized that because i didn't actually know anything i was either going to have to stop pretending i did, or go ahead and find out everything there was to know about the subject. I was sure this endeavor would only further solidify my liberal beliefs. I was wrong. I became a conservative as a side-effect of wanting to know the truth.
I am a lifelong atheist. I can not remember ever feeling any other way. I am no longer an anti-religious jerk, as in my youth(not coincidentally when i was also a lib
)
Conservatives are WRONG about the issue of gay marriage. It is a departure from our commitment to the constitution and as such, it opens us up to the accusation of being less than genuine and only defending our precious constitution when it suits us. Just like the left does.
The "equal protection" clause of the fourteenth amendment is clear and has been interpreted (an "originalist" interpretation) to mean that all citizens are to be treated as equals in the eyes of the law(govt). As such, it is absolutely unconstitutional for the federal govt to deny two homosexuals the right to marry as long as it is granting that right to heterosexuals. That is all. It is clear and undeniable.
Why do you think gay marriage always wins in court? They can't ALL be activist judges, can they? And why do you think Republicans wanted to amend the constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman? Because, as written, the constitution supports gay marriage. That's why.
I will attempt to counter a few of the objections that are sure to be raised.
1.)slippery-slope. No. The equal protection clause would not support polygamy. If the federal govt wants to limit the number of spouses allowed, the constitution would not be violated. No one would be being denied their "civil rights" as the denial would not be based on any identifiable characteristic, they are not being denied based on gender, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. etc. Nor would it support bestiality or any of the other absurd slippery-slope arguments.
2.)The GLBT agenda. As i said, i am a conservative. I oppose this organization and work to counter their agenda on a daily basis, as do most conservatives.
3.)Special Rights. This is a rare case where the right they are seeking is not a "special right" but the exact same right as their fellow Americans enjoy. If the government was not in the business of sanctioning marriage, there would be no issue here. Which is probably the best answer in the end. However, since that is unlikely to happen, the constitution must be upheld and conservatives need to practice what I preachP) and have the courage and integrity to defend the principle of liberty in a case where it may be offensive to their own personal sensibilities. Do not tell me they can have civil unions with all the same legal rights. Unfortunately for you, they have every right to demand the same thing as heterosexuals have, even in name. They have every right to demand that it not only be the same thing, but also that it be called the same thing. Separate but equal is not equal.
4.)the Sanctity of marriage. that is a joke. I am 40, my wife is 38. We have been married 22 yrs. When my son was born she was 15 and i was 17, we have 3 children now and plan to be married till we die. I have lived my belief in the sanctity of marriage. So until some of you conservatives start suggesting criminal penalties for adultery, divorce, or maybe making separate checking accounts illegal, i don"t want to hear about the sanctity of marriage. Brittany Spears and Madonna have done more to damage the sanctity of marriage than homosexual could ever hope to. So in a world of underwater elvis weddings, this argument needs to be dropped.
Try to imagine the boost to the conservative movement this might bring. At some point, the religious conservatives, who i love and defend, are going to have to agree to let the constitution govern and leave their faith at home. The freedom of Religion is under assault. I will be there to defend it with you. But maybe you should consider our founding and the significance of how our founders handled it. When it came to the Declaration of Independence, a document that was very personal to the men who wrote and signed it, they paced their God prominently. We are a judeo-christian nation in founding. But when it came time for those same men(largely) to write a governing document for our nation, they left their God out. I will be there to dispel the myth of "separation" , to underscore the fact of "shall make no law", but on this matter i feel you religious conservatives are doing the movement a dis-service.
Jeffrey
I am a lifelong atheist. I can not remember ever feeling any other way. I am no longer an anti-religious jerk, as in my youth(not coincidentally when i was also a lib
)Conservatives are WRONG about the issue of gay marriage. It is a departure from our commitment to the constitution and as such, it opens us up to the accusation of being less than genuine and only defending our precious constitution when it suits us. Just like the left does.
The "equal protection" clause of the fourteenth amendment is clear and has been interpreted (an "originalist" interpretation) to mean that all citizens are to be treated as equals in the eyes of the law(govt). As such, it is absolutely unconstitutional for the federal govt to deny two homosexuals the right to marry as long as it is granting that right to heterosexuals. That is all. It is clear and undeniable.
Why do you think gay marriage always wins in court? They can't ALL be activist judges, can they? And why do you think Republicans wanted to amend the constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman? Because, as written, the constitution supports gay marriage. That's why.
I will attempt to counter a few of the objections that are sure to be raised.
1.)slippery-slope. No. The equal protection clause would not support polygamy. If the federal govt wants to limit the number of spouses allowed, the constitution would not be violated. No one would be being denied their "civil rights" as the denial would not be based on any identifiable characteristic, they are not being denied based on gender, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. etc. Nor would it support bestiality or any of the other absurd slippery-slope arguments.
2.)The GLBT agenda. As i said, i am a conservative. I oppose this organization and work to counter their agenda on a daily basis, as do most conservatives.
3.)Special Rights. This is a rare case where the right they are seeking is not a "special right" but the exact same right as their fellow Americans enjoy. If the government was not in the business of sanctioning marriage, there would be no issue here. Which is probably the best answer in the end. However, since that is unlikely to happen, the constitution must be upheld and conservatives need to practice what I preach
P) and have the courage and integrity to defend the principle of liberty in a case where it may be offensive to their own personal sensibilities. Do not tell me they can have civil unions with all the same legal rights. Unfortunately for you, they have every right to demand the same thing as heterosexuals have, even in name. They have every right to demand that it not only be the same thing, but also that it be called the same thing. Separate but equal is not equal.4.)the Sanctity of marriage. that is a joke. I am 40, my wife is 38. We have been married 22 yrs. When my son was born she was 15 and i was 17, we have 3 children now and plan to be married till we die. I have lived my belief in the sanctity of marriage. So until some of you conservatives start suggesting criminal penalties for adultery, divorce, or maybe making separate checking accounts illegal, i don"t want to hear about the sanctity of marriage. Brittany Spears and Madonna have done more to damage the sanctity of marriage than homosexual could ever hope to. So in a world of underwater elvis weddings, this argument needs to be dropped.
Try to imagine the boost to the conservative movement this might bring. At some point, the religious conservatives, who i love and defend, are going to have to agree to let the constitution govern and leave their faith at home. The freedom of Religion is under assault. I will be there to defend it with you. But maybe you should consider our founding and the significance of how our founders handled it. When it came to the Declaration of Independence, a document that was very personal to the men who wrote and signed it, they paced their God prominently. We are a judeo-christian nation in founding. But when it came time for those same men(largely) to write a governing document for our nation, they left their God out. I will be there to dispel the myth of "separation" , to underscore the fact of "shall make no law", but on this matter i feel you religious conservatives are doing the movement a dis-service.
Jeffrey
