As Conservatives, What About Same-Sex Marriage?


Bring up a controversial topic on Twitter, and be ready for a vast array of replies. In light of the SCOTUS lack of an order today on any of the same-sex cases on its docket, I asked a simple question. It started with this tweet:

Some of the responses included:

How do people equate same-sex marriage with “other things?”

Some think getting rid of benefits for married couples altogether is the answer:

Also, some believe that gay marriage will cause the family unit to deteriorate, even though it already has (without same-sex marriage, meaning that same-sex marriage cannot be the cause):

Perhaps the fact that “marriage” — a term with a religious foundation — has been usurped by the government is indeed the problem.

What if we all had civil unions, and then were married in a church for a religious ceremony? Some churches would not allow same-sex marriages, others would. Is this a solution?

What are your thoughts? Comment on the post and let us know how you believe “conservatism” should be applied to same-sex marriage.


  1. jackiedoss says:

    When it gets right down to it, marriage is a spiritual thing AND a civil thing. And those things, in my opinion, should be separate, unless we want the government dictating our spiritual behavior. Let’s dig down to the minutae here. Regarding the civil definition: Why do we need the government to give us permission to enter into a mutually agreed-upon contract… other than to file something for legal record, in order to avoid fraud? So, if we don’t need the govt to give us permission to enter into a contract, and if filing this document simply for the sake of making sure the person we’re marrying isn’t married to someone else already, thus making the contract null and void… then… why do we have to define what marriage is — civilly — at all? It certainly would cause less strife if govt just got out of the way, and people of faith stopped requiring that the govt define marriage.

    When you get right down to it, the biggest issue is the benefits. That’s why LGBT’s are so concerned about it, and that’s certainly understandable. Unfortunately, once civil unions are recognized by all entitites who provide benefits to spouses, they’re probably less inclined to offer them to anyone … at all… because it would be more of a financial strain. But I think it’s worth trying. Let all govt entitites stop defining marriage. Allow anyone who wants to get married, as long as they are mutually consenting to this contract. Let them file this contract at a courthouse so it’s public record… and be done with it. Then see where the cards fall when it comes to the private sector.

    If we truly want the govt’s hands off of our lives… we shouldn’t be demanding that the government prohibit something just because we disagree with it. Right?!

  2. What is marriage? Webster’s first definition is “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.” The second definition goes on to describe the opposite of what they defined first – uniting to a person of the opposite sex – adding, “as in same-sex marriage.” If marriage is the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex, it cannot be a uniting to a person of the same sex. On the basis of logic alone, there is no such thing as “same-sex” marriage.

    No one has said gay unions are the cause of the deterioration of the family unit. No one disputes the family unit has deteriorated. What is in dispute is whether you should throw the baby out with the bathwater. With high divorce-rates and large percentages of the population being unwed parents, which no one will argue is a good thing, should we then dismantle the family unit further?

    You dismissed out of hand the argument that a man should be allowed to marry his horse, but as society continues to slide down a path to perversion and debauchery, more people like Peter Singer will continue to step forward. Not only does he advocate abortion, he advocates abortion post-birth. A new group of ethicists has stepped forward in favor of allowing parents to end the life of their child, up to three months postpartum. He argues we should kill people whose lives are deemed to have no value, i.e., those with mental and physical disabilities along with those suffering from the infirmity of old age (he has said if his mother’s care was entrusted to him instead of his sister, she would not be alive.) Dr. Kevorkian, right to die legislation and Terri Schiavo show how eager others have been to devalue life. Since he’s also a supporter of bestiality, is it really too much of a stretch to believe that at some point, someone will claim they should have the right to marry their beloved pet?

    I have always thought it was the height of hypocrisy that the group which has for years screamed and hollered that the church and the government need to stay out of their bedroom now demand that the government define the activities they engage in as “marriage” and want the church to marry them.

    The definition of marriage is what the definition of marriage is. Asking government to come in and redefine it so the behavior a small portion of the population is legitimized is government interference at its worst.

  3. 1greeneyedgal, the church is not bound to marry anyone against it’s will. This would be a mute point if the government hadn’t turned marriage into a contract more than a spiritual union. The government has because of this already redefined marriage. I say the government gets out of the marriage business all together, everyone can obtain a civil union contract for benefits etc, and everyone who wants to be married can go through a church.

  4. pianoplayerdavid says:

    Hi Sara Marie,

    I should preface this by saying I’m a homosexual twenty something living in NYC, with very moderate political views. I frequently peruse your blog; I try to keep a well-rounded view of current events.

    Same-Sex Marriage is important to me, and like most of my community it greatly influences our political leanings. For many, it’s about gaining the same rights as heterosexual marriage. (Tax benefits, insurance purposes, hospital visitation rights.) No one is hoping to get married in an attempt to defraud Christian or American moral values.

    It’s not the government’s job to dictate religion. If Washington DC to keep marriage as a religious institution and designate civil unions, I’m all for it.

    I think the LGBT vote is important. Yes. Not because it’s a large part of the population, but because at this point in history the LGBT community has such a wide influence. The entertainment and industries are largely run by the LGBT community- it’s been this way since Vaudeville.

    I would love to see the GOP take a more positive stance toward the LGBT community. It certainly couldn’t hurt them. The GOP is (obviously) the better party for fiscal and economic policies. The GOP could do great things for our country. They just need to reach a wider audience.

  5. I’ve written several articles addressing the issue, and am getting ready to come out with another…No, this is not an attempt to promote my article, just a note that I’ve considered the subject from a number of different perspectives. There are a number of problems associated with the way many approach the “same sex” marriage discussion, all of which have to do with accepting the narrative as presented by those in favor and than attempting to argue against that same narrative point by point.

    A good point was made above that the probable financial benefits are a major contributing factor in making it an issue in the first place.

    Just my thoughts.

Leave a comment or question. Report abusive, harassing or annoying behavior by clicking on Tips/Contact in the top menu.

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: