Craig Westover: Conservative Gay Marriage 101
Craig Westover continues to write some thoughtful posts arguing that gays should be included in the institution of marriage. His latest is here.
In final analysis, Kersten's argument is really an inverse liberal argument -- we have the power, our values rule. Even accepting the worst case viewpoint that homosexuals are evil people and gay marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God, the true conservative political argument, if one is not going to exterminate gays and/or take their children, is that it is more beneficial to extend the protections and stability of marriage to gays -- not all at once but in increments -- than it is to marginalize gay families and their children and consequently promote the pathologies that marriage is praised for preventing.
Gays -- conservative gays -- do not want to redefine marriage. The want to participate in it. And even if they didn't, conservatives ought to be encouraging them to do so with the same vigor and for the same reasons we encourage our own children "to settle down and raise a family."
He's called out Chuck Darrell from the Minnesota Family Council.
Well written column. Although I don't agree with much of it, you have a keen understanding for how liberal relativists reach concensus: by over-powering their opponents with feelings of passion. (Read Culture War by JD Hunter)
As Communications Director for Minnesota for Marriage I've had the good furtune to reflect upon the opinions of each camp. Three things stand out over all others: the insight from the African American community is invaluable; we are all human - there shall be no demonizing from either side; and, religion is at the heart of the issue.
The latter is the 900 lb Gorilla that is denied, revised or thumped. It's time that people of faith stopped apologizing and become apologists, and for secularists to cease with the revisionist censorship and engage the debate without the sterotypical name calling that stokes the flames of polarization.
It's dysfuntional to attempt a dialogue regarding same-sex marriage and ignore matters of faith. It's also historically ignorant to argue that faith has no part in the discussion.
Ironically, I have learned more about love and grace - both fruits of the spirit - by standing firm for traditional marriage. This wouldn't have occured in a religion free vacum.
I have a couple of editorials that address these core issues and more. Diversity of mother and father: A Child's Civil Right, can be found here, and, Church-state relationship is soul of democracy, at http://www,mfc.org/ Cursor down the page to locate the article.
Chuck Darrell | 06.04.05 - 1:58 pm | #
Gravatar Chuck --
I read your piece on a Child's Civil Right. I agree. The "best" way to raise a child is in a loving two-parents-of-opposite-gender home. But my question is, what are the implications you are proposing for public policy based on that conclusion?
Should we forcibly remove all children -- natural or adopted -- from same-sex couples currently raising them? If not, what is the social benefit of denying these children the protection and benefits of living in a home where the parents are married?
Isn't a child "better" off with same-sex parents that are married than with same-sex parents that are not married? If not, then we are back at step one. Why not advocate, for the sake of the children and society, removing them from the custody of same-sex couples, if indeed the very nature of same-sex relationships is harmful to children?
Neither the relative "goodness" of same- and opposite-sex families nor the dysfunctional condition of some same- and opposite-sex families is a valid argument for or against extending marriage to gay couples. If you don't advocate the logically consistent view that children should be removed from gay families, then the burden of proof falls to you to show how denying those children the protection and benefits of married parents is better than extending to them the same protections and benefits provided to children in opposite-sex relationships.
It's a good honest discussion, and I very much appreciate Craig hosting this.