Is It Time for the GOP to Embrace Gay Marriage?

The love that dare not speak its name…

Jon Huntsman writing an article about why conservatives should embrace gay embrace at the American Conservative, a magazine co-founded by Pat Buchanan, is already a strange marriage.

Huntsman is pushing the thoroughly unoriginal and discredited idea that the Republican Party has to stay competitive by becoming socially liberal and fiscally free market. That was the Romney campaign in a nutshell and it was not terribly appealing. The last election should have been a reminder that a socially liberal country of broken families is not going to vote for small government or the free market. Not when it depends on government aid.

But here Huntsman is trying to sell gay marriage or “marriage equality” as a conservative value. Even Justin Raimondo, Buchanan’s gay anti-war partner disavowed gay marriage. But Huntsman powers on.

The Huntsman solution is hard to tell apart from the Obama solution. He wants a new breed of Republicans like him who will be socially liberal and depicts that social liberalism as a conservative value using vague slogans about “Our Communities”. Specifically Huntsman insists that Republicans should embrace gay marriage. Why?

Like every liberal Republican, Jon Huntsman wraps his agenda in electability, but really is the Republican Party badly in need of the gay marriage vote? Can it even get it?

Huntsman says that every marriage should be treated equally under the law. Which it is. Gay marriage innovates a new entity using a name that does not apply to it. It’s the usual leftist tactic of broadening a definition until it no longer means anything. But if Huntsman really means that every marriage should be treated equally, why not recognize polygamy? There is no answer, because there is no logical argument. And 10 years from now, he will be arguing that to win Muslim votes, the Republican Party should recognize Polygamy.

“This does not mean that any religious group would be forced by the state to recognize relationships that run counter to their conscience,” Huntsman says, but that’s a lie and he knows it.

If all forms and concepts of marriage are treated equally by the law, then states will begin investigating and penalizing businesses that fail to accommodate it. That is already the case in much of the country. Even if religious organizations are exempt, as with the ObamaCare abortion mandate, religious people won’t be.

Everyone is already free to marry anyone or anything they like in the religion or non-religion of their choice. What Huntsman is really talking about is government recognition of one form of alternative marriage and not others. That is both contradictory and hypocritical. And it penalizes the values and economic interests of a majority of Americans.

There’s nothing free market about a government mandate for gay marriage.

From a practical standpoint, the Republican Party will not win by retreating on every social issue and then prattling on about the free market. The free market matters most to people who believe in individual liberty, not in the power of the government to enforce its values on others. And that is what gay marriage supporters are really after.

  • http://anziulewicz.livejournal.com Chuck Anziulewicz

    The GOP may not “Go Gay” anytime soon … but sooner or later they’ll have to come to grips with the fact that vilifying Gay Americans is no longer a vote-getter for them. Back in 2009 a CBS News survey found that while only 18% of Americans over the age of 65 supported marriage equality for Gay couples, 41% of American under the age of 45 supported it. That was FOUR YEARS AGO, and the generational shift in attitudes among young people toward their Gay friends and family members is accelerating.

    Even conservative columnist Andrew Stuttaford grudgingly acknowledged this: “I fully understand (even if I do not agree with) the idea that same-sex unions are a threat to conventional marriage and I fully understand those who argue that opposition to gay marriage is a fundamental principle too important to be abandoned for reasons of political expediency, but these findings should, I reckon, at least be some sort of warning to those who assume that the GOP’s current position on this issue will continue to be a vote-winner.”.

    30 years ago most Americans were not aware of any Gay friends, family members, or co-workers. Today most Americans ARE aware, and they have become dramatically more accepting and supportive of the Gay people and Gay couples in their lives. And social networking sites like Facebook have made the proverbial "closet" virtually obsolete. The Republican Party ignores this growing acceptance at their own peril. The economy is important, yes… but your friends are PERSONAL.

    • NAHALKIDES

      Neither Republicans nor conservatives are currently "vilifying" gays. Being against gay "marriage" is not anti-gay just because social liberals claim it is. Marriage needs to be strengthened, gay "marriage" (to be followed by polygamy and perhaps bestiality) would be its death-blow. Republicans don't need to embrace gay "marriage," they need to make the case for real marriage, something they don't seem to be up to at the moment.

      • EarlyBird

        "Neither Republicans nor conservatives are currently "vilifying" gays."

        Many are. Be honest.

        "Being against gay "marriage" is not anti-gay just because social liberals claim it is."

        I agree it is not automatic proof of bigotry.

        "Marriage needs to be strengthened, gay "marriage" (to be followed by polygamy and perhaps bestiality) would be its death-blow. "

        But bestiality and polygamy, etc., are not in any way equal to gay marriage. Those unions would hurt marriage, our laws, etc. You can only consider two serious adult gay people committing to each other for life a threat to marriage if in fact you consider it akin to bestiality, etc.

        We can't base our laws on "No, because I find it 'icky'"

  • Mamala

    Daniel, I follow you daily & bask in your brilliance. But on this subject, I do NOT agree. Refer to Bret Stephens speech at Restoration Weekend. The GOP needs to DROP social issues like a hot potato. It's not a matter of endorsement, it's about not vilifying those that do support gay unions & abortion. Get it OFF THE PLATFORM. The liberals make us look like neanderthals & succeed in swaying the independent vote. The majority of the country are centrists. The GOP needs to focus on smaller government, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility, strong defense. Otherwise, the new, crazy, communist, progressive version of the Democratic party will become a super majority & all is lost.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Liberals can make conservatives look like neanderthals on every issue. And then the GOP has to evolve on every issue to get to a shifting center until it stands for nothing.

      The social-issues free Republican Party is not exactly winning over the masses.

      • Mamala

        we will agree to disagree. won't make me stop believing in your brilliance.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          fair enough

      • EarlyBird

        It's not hard to make you look like a Neanderthal, Daniel. You have shown repeatedly to have zero respect for the rule of law and the Constitution, or basic concepts of liberty, when they get in the way of creating your perfect world as you see it.

    • NAHALKIDES

      Mitt Romney did rather well with independents – he may even have won them – so it isn't true that Republicans have to embrace social liberalism in order to win votes (Romney lost for other reasons). The fiscal conservative/social liberal is about as real as the unicorn. In the end, the "liberal" part rules and they vote Democratic no matter what. Better to hold on to our conservative base, don't you think? Remember that without the social conservative vote, John Kerry would have defeated George Bush in 2004 and Republicans would have lost 4 out of 4 of the last presidential elections, as measured by the popular vote.

      • EarlyBird

        The fiscal conservative/social liberal simply finds the social conservative side so repugnant, that they can't vote for the GOP.

    • guest

      the only neanderthals are those deviants who want change our values built on knowledge gained after hundreds of years of success for this country

  • PAthena

    "Gay marriage" is dishonest, no doubt promoted by James Hormel, the very wealthy and politically active homosexual. Any adults can live together, with or without sexual relations (except for incest), make any financial arrangements they want. Calling such arrangements between homosexuals "marriage" is to give these homosexuals the rights of real married people, like those for adoption. The birds that mate on my balcony always engage in heterosexual relations, mating is only between male and female. Society has an interest in real marriage, since children come from them. It has no interest at all in homosexual unions.
    Homosexuality is, alas, a mental disorder – even though homosexual terrorists forced the American Psychiatric Society to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. I suspect it is a way of Nature to control population size.

    • EarlyBird

      And you wonder why conservatives are so easily tarred as Neanderthals. You're seriously a sicko.

  • jay

    People who want the GOP to drop these issues are missing a fundamental point. The radical redefinition of marriage, the family, and social order all come from the same place as the socialism of Obama & Co. It peddles sentiment as the driver for social change, and that everything us up for a vote based on those feelings. Obama & Co use the same logic to peddle income/property theft and redistribution. We revolted against the British for far less than what takes place today. We are not owned by the collective, no matter how many sob stories the left trots out in front of the camera. The Natural Law exists, and through reason we can discern what is and is not permissible. Those fixed principles govern our lives regardless of our feelings about our "friends" and "family members" orientations.

    • EarlyBird

      You must understand how far gay rights proponents have come. They went from wanting the right to have anonymous sex in bath houses, to having the right to do the most conservative and society-affirming institution, marriage. They are asking to settle down, commit fully to one another for life and build families and neighborhoods.

      I understand it's a jolt. I went through a "Good God, what next?!" thing myself, but then realized that they want normalcy, not to be set aside and treated differently at all.

      And I am at a total loss to find a single salient argument as to why is threatens straight marriage.

  • Anonymous

    In British Columbia, Canada, last year there was a well publicized case of an owner (of a "bed and breakfast") who (because of his Christian values) cancelled a couple's reservation. When the owner discovered that it was a gay couple who had reserved a room for X number of nights, he cancelled their reservation. The gay couple were upset and launched a human rights complaint. The Bed and Breakfast owner lost the case. The gay couple's right not to be discriminated against due to sexual orientation trumped the owner's religious views. The owner was forced to pay $4,000 dollars for causing the gay couple "humiliation", etc. (the bed and breakfast is no longer in business). This is a fairly standard outcome here in Canada.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      There have already been worse cases in the US, including a church being targeted for not allowing a gay marriage to take place on its property.

      • Ar'nun

        Just look what Canada tried to do to Mark Steyn for daring to speak the truth about Jihad.

      • guest

        the gays find the right judge and turn the "justice " system upside down…is that justice or a perversion of justice?

      • Mark

        A church is not required to hold same sex marriages in its churches. However, if they own a hall that is generally open to the public, they may be required to rent to all comers under anti-discrimination laws. This would include being unable to discriminate against Jewish Weddings or Mixed Race Weddings, even if those went against their religious beliefs. This is really a seperate issue from same sex marriage. We don't allow people who are white seperatists to run a hotel and exclude blacks, even if it is their sincerely held religious belief that the races shouldn't mix.

    • Mary Sue

      And I'm sure you've heard by now that two Albino humans were offended at Earl's Restaurant for selling "Albino Rhino" beer and its spinoff product "Albino Wings". The one albino woman would be black except for the fact that she's an albino and is so steeped in Identity Politics it isn't even funny. Add to the fact that Witch Doctors in her native Nigeria (and other African countries) will straight-up MURDER albino people to use their body parts for spells and potions makes her one messed in the head person who takes the extremes of what happens in Africa and somehow applies the principles to Canada.

      The woman and a friend of hers from their charity in Canada went to the BC Human Rights Commission and then Earls who initially was incredulous about the complaint, said screw it, we'll just call it Rhino beer. They knew once the Commission agreed to hear the case that they had NO CHANCE.

      • Anonymous

        Maybe "republicans in name only" (aka RINOs ) should immediately launch a complaint against Earl's — just imagine the hefty settlement they would be entitled to…ah, the profitability of hurt feelings.

      • EarlyBird

        The world's turned upside down! Aaargh!

    • EarlyBird

      Good for Canada.

  • Ar'nun

    I don't think Republicans should necessarily embrace gay marriage, but maybe it is time to move on to actual important subjects. Such as National Debt, National Security, a budget for the first time in 5 years, strengthening the 2nd amendment so the Libtards can't eradicate it, and of course the most important item, getting the Muslim Brotherhood out of DC.

    • guest

      important subject? God destroyed Sodom…is that important enough?

      • Mark

        God didn't do anything about the polygamist marriages in the old Testament though. Interesting.

  • Anonymous

    Ezra Levant also noted another case (hilarious) — a Muslim barber refused to cut the hair of a Lesbian. Bingo! Human rights complaint. As Levant noted, this puts the mis-named "human rights" commission into a perplexing quandary — who will be their most favored grievance monger to win an award? It's Muslim vs homosexual…(I don't believe the case has been decided yet — but this is the kind of idiocy Canadians have come to expect from our Nanny State).

    • Mary Sue

      hm odd, this thing must be broken, it deleted my comment. That case should be heard this month.

    • http://twitter.com/mikofox @mikofox

      There is hope, maybe. We just got an 'Office for Religious Freedom' – affiliated to Foreign Affairs I believe.

  • Mike Renzulli

    A marriage license is the only document governments and insurance companies will accept for a marriage to be legitimate. This is why there is such a push among gays and lesbians to legalize gay marriage. The way marriage is regulated it is prohibitively expensive for couples (gay or straight) to establish trusts to legally protect their assets via wills or even signed agreements in which such documentation can be contested in a court of law. Oft times non-married couples are subject to humongous tax rates and that includes when gay or straight partners inherit the deceased loved one's wealth provided that a relative of the deceased does not legally challenge the inheritance.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Various reforms can be enacted to make asset protection easier and reduce tax burdens short of marriage.

    • Steeloak

      I disagree with your point. The gay marriage issue has never been about marriage or benefits or legal status – gays have always been able to marry, always have had legal ways to have gay partnerships recognized for purposes of inheritance, medical care, financing, etc. Sure they can be made easier to do and probably should be, but that's not the real issue.

      The true issue is will society be forced, not to just tolerate gay lifestyles, but to accept them as normal and not be allowed to think of them as deviant in any way. The true discrimination gays wish to end is the idea that their lifestyle is not normal.

      The problem for society is that if we accept their argument, then any self-described group that wishes to engage in "abnormal" or "deviant" behaviour just needs to organize and actively demand their right to do so, in order to demand acceptance by society.

      We are already seeing the early stages of groups like NAMBLA pushing for recognizing a right for adult men to have sex with boys, as well as groups pushing for recognizing polygamy.

      The question is where do we draw the line or will eventually any extreme of human behaviour be protected by law?

      • EarlyBird

        But Steel, why then do we hear story after story of gay people being unable to be with their spouse at the end of their lives in a hospital room or make medical decisions for them, or being able to inherit property from that person, and so on? I refuse to believe these are all lies.

      • EarlyBird

        Oh, nobody is saying you can't hate gays for being "deviant," if you want. Just give them fair protection under the law, okay? "I don't like them" is not an argument for discrimination.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "The true issue is will society be forced, not to just tolerate gay lifestyles, but to accept them as normal and not be allowed to think of them as deviant in any way. The true discrimination gays wish to end is the idea that their lifestyle is not normal. "

        Bingo. Precisely. I lived near San Francisco for many years and watched the mentality evolve as they gained political power. Many of them "feel" that we are to adjust everything we say and do until they "feel" we accept them as totally equal in every way. The most radical will use it to go after every religion that makes any comment about the issue. It won't end well.

        • EarlyBird

          You're allowed to "feel" anyway you wish, and state very vocally how you feel. You just can't discriminate against fellow American citizens for totally pointless reasons.

          As an example, I can feel that you're a reactionary posing as a thoughtful conservative, and say it, but I can't keep you from voting or polluting chat boards with your stupidity.

          See how democracy works?

          • Steeloak

            The problem for you is that as long as us "reactionaries" are able to maintain the freedom you have, you can say, think, and feel as you please. The same isn't true when your side finally takes over and the "fundamental transformation" of America is completed.

            Look to Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, or Castro's Cuba for examples of what happens to people who say incorrect things, think incorrect thoughts, or have incorrect feelings.

  • EarlyBird

    Huntsman did not just argue for gay marriage as something to make GOP contenders more electable, but that it was in fact a "conservative" thing to want serious, adult couples in love with each other to commit to each other for life. It actually strengthens society in the same way that serious, commited straight marriages strengthen society.

    "Polygamy," marrying dogs and cats, etc., and any other specious comparisons Danny tries to make are moot, because such unions demonstrably damage society, confuse our law and property rights, etc., whereas gay marriage does the very opposite.

    Danny Greenfield provides no reason why such unions would threaten families or other exising marriages, and doesn't even pretend to offer them. He just is grossed out by gay people, and has zero interest in fairness under the law, democracy, or anything else that gets in the way of his backwards march to the Good Ol' Days.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      ""Polygamy," marrying dogs and cats, etc., and any other specious comparisons Danny tries to make are moot, because such unions demonstrably damage society,"

      So you are taking the position that polygamy is clearly bad for society while homosexual "equality in marriage" (making gender moot) is not?

      Please try to make that case. I can't want. You said, "such unions demonstrably damage society" in reference to marriage with animals or multiple spouses (including multiple animals I suppose) so I want to hear that argument that doesn't apply to homosexual pairs.

      Then you have to make the case that polygamists somehow have fewer "individual rights" to marry the "person they love."

      "Danny Greenfield provides no reason why such unions would threaten families or other exising marriages, and doesn't even pretend to offer them."

      Not all of us are as dense as you. Try this, as if you can read.
      http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/why_gay_ma

      "He just is grossed out by gay people"

      And you're an omniscient prophet. Didn't you on more than one occasion compare yourself to Jesus?

      • EarlyBird

        "So you are taking the position that polygamy is clearly bad for society while homosexual "equality in marriage" (making gender moot) is not?"

        Yes.

        "…so I want to hear that argument that doesn't apply to homosexual pairs."

        Because if someone "marries" a pet horse, it is a meaningless appelation. How do we extend any kind of spousal rights to that pet horse? How does property get shared, etc.? Same goes with polygamy. It makes a mess of law. Same goes with people marrying relatives. It hurts society and the law. Gay marriage does not do that.

        "Then you have to make the case that polygamists somehow have fewer "individual rights" to marry the "person they love.""

        I just did. I accept that marriage is a social institution which affects society, and so society should have a say in who marries. I just can't come up with an argument that says that two committed serious adults, who are not related (more legal/social confusion), some how hurt society or the institution of marriage. In fact, I see that it strengthens it like any good marriage would.

        I've noticed that you've offered zero arguments against gay marriage on your own. It's because you have none. I'd love to hear your reasoning. Hint: "Gays are so…icky!" doesn't cut it. Surely you and Mrs. OFM are "icky" too, but that shouldn't keep you from marrying.

        See how democracy works?

  • EarlyBird

    Probably anti-Semitic deceitful gays! And Black ones too!

  • Hugh Embriaco

    The reason why a lot of people commenting here cannot see how gay "marriage" is an attack on marriage is that this is just the latest and most obvious attack on marriage that began with no-fault divorce.
    As long as people cannot understand that the principal end of marriage is the propagation of the species, and not merely a contract to receive government benefits as long as the mutual masturbation is satisfying, they cannot see that the definition of marriage is already destroyed.
    The Catholic Church teaches that a man and a woman who want to get married, but who intend never to have children, cannot validly contract a marriage. The Church will not marry them. But, on the other hand, the Church in America freely hands out annulments, and thus contributes to the corruption of marriage.

    • EarlyBird

      Hugh, I doubt one iota that you would be for legally forbidding elderly couples unable and unwilling to procreate, or for that matter young couples, from marrying because they could not procreate.

      You are absolutely, positively wrong about this: "The Catholic Church teaches that a man and a woman who want to get married, but who intend never to have children, cannot validly contract a marriage. The Church will not marry them."

      Time to return to catechism class.

  • Hugh Embriaco

    The Church also teaches that heterosexual fellatio or sodomy, when brought to fruition, is JUST AS EVIL and unnatural as homosexual fellatio or sodomy. There is no difference in the nature of the sin. In fact, masturbation is just as evil as homosexual sodomy.
    Who, these days, recognize these truths? So the society is already so corrupt and irrational that it truly has no defense against arguments in favor of gay "marriage."

    • Mark

      The horror of male masturbation! Geez, get a life!

  • Hugh Embriaco

    Where homosexuals are able to "marry," their average "marriage" lasts 1.5 years. While they are in this "marriage," they have an average of 12 outside partners.

    If a heterosexual couple were going to behave the same way (get married for 1.5 years and have affairs with 12 different people), they would have the sense not to get married.

    So this is not about marriage. This is a sham about manipulating the system for government benefits, like the people who get married to get a green card or to get on their "spouse's" health insurance.

    • EarlyBird

      Bull sh**. You're lying through your teeth.

    • TheOne

      Yeah Hugh's making up numbers again.

  • ExtremeNativist

    During a time in which we are assaulted by a gale of Leftist lies we should take moment to remember the fact that there is no such thing as gay marriage.

    Marriage is the union of a man and a woman in the sight of God. Without God there is no marriage, and without a man and a woman there is no marriage.

    Fashionable fads and government lies do not change that fact. If gays want to commit to each other (and typically several hundred other sexual partners) and live together, that's certainly none of my business. But they aren't married.

    The lie of gay marriage is just another perverse, dishonest attempt by the Left to redefine reality and destroy civilization. It is just another attempt to normalize deviance; deviants being one of the prime constituencies of the Leftist traitors and tyrants.

    Gay simply marriage doesn't exist. It is just another Leftist fantasy.

    And the cowards over at "The American Conservative" have decided to join the enemy. Their redefining of conservatism so that it is indistinguishable from lively, vibrant, diverse, Leftist pathology is deadly serious, but it reads just like the Onion. Their tortuous rationalizations of their cowardly surrender savor of the same kinds of insane rationalizations that have been oozing out of Leftists for decades. These are people who waste ALL of the intelligence they have trying to make us believe that right is wrong, cowardice is courage and success is failure. They are literally insane.

    In the past month "The American Conservative" ran a story "celebrating" the hostile invasion and infestation of the U.S. by third-world savages and affirmative-action parasites because they might just some day vote antiwar. Good lord. I thought for sure this was just clumsy sarcasm, but no, they actually think our little brown and black brothers will save us from ourselves.

    Another imbecile over a AmCon, a Leon Hadar, actually seems to think that our affirmative-action-parasite-in-chief is a "Republican Realist." That is just a flat out fantasy. Hadar has made a cowardly surrender to Leftist tyranny, but he doesn't have the honesty to admit it. He would have us believe he is still some kind of conservative. "The American Conservative" is becoming the jailhouse bitch of evil Leftists and they are doing this in full public view.
    The American Conservative has made the Onion redundant.