The Gay Marriage Litmus Test

Here’s the conundrum GOP candidates face. Standing for traditional marriage is a winner for the primaries but a loser for the general. That is why many hope that the Supreme Court will bail them out this summer. But no matter what the Supreme Court rules, these guys still have to persuade a conservative base. From Politico:

DES MOINES, Iowa — The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to rule on gay marriage once and for all in June, and there are many Republicans who privately would love nothing more than to have the question settled and off the table in time for the 2016 presidential election.

It’s not going to happen. Social conservatives here are determined to keep the issue alive during the run-up to next February’s Republican caucuses, no matter how the high court rules or how much some establishment figures would like to move on.

Read the rest here.


    • Brian Levie

      Curt – 2 questions: 1) How would you suggest that one could stand for traditional marriage yet not oppose forms of non-traditional marriage? 2) Is there any form of non-traditional marriage you would oppose, and if so, why.

      • Curt Day

        Seeing that our traditional marriage comes from our religious beliefs, I find it very easy to support traditional marriage while allowing for same-sex marriages in society. Remember the 1st amendment. A better way to support traditional marriage is through evangelism alone.

        What forms of non-traditional marriage would I oppose in society?
        1. Incestuous marriages — for health of the children reasons
        2. Marriage to more than one partner — for legal and property division reasons along with equality issues
        3. Obviously any marriage to a person younger than 18 — because they are not legal adults
        4. Obviously any marriage involving other species — among other reasons because other species cannot give informed consent.

        • Brian Levie

          1. Are you making the case that since traditional marriage is grounded in religious beliefs, and non-traditional marriages are grounded in non-religious beliefs, therefore traditional marriage supporters should not oppose non-traditional marriage?
          2. Would you support an incestuous marriage if the couple involved would not or could not procreate? Would you support polygamy if all parties consented to equally divide all property among themselves? Would you support child marriage if the definition of legal adult was changed? Would you support inter-species marriage if informed consent was not legally required?

          • Curt Day

            There is nothing in defending traditional marriage that says we must prohibit same-sex marriage in society. THat is an added option. And just as we would oppose other religions solely through the preaching of the Gospel, we can do the same with same-sex marriage.

            • Brian Levie

              Curt- You’ve shifted the discussion from opposing to prohibiting same-sex marriage. That was not your original question ( “Why must standing for traditional marriage imply that one must oppose same-sex marriage in society?”). The attempt to compare same-sex marriage to opposing other religions breaks down because in the first case you’re taking about prohibiting same-sex marriage, but in the second case you’re talking about opposing other religions. Perhaps you’re seeing no distinction between oppose and prohibit whereas I see a distinction. I don’t think you’ve answered question #1 regarding your thoughts about traditional marriage being grounded in religious beliefs vs non-traditional marriage being grounded in non-religious beliefs.

              • Curt Day

                I didn’t shift the discussion, I was responding to what you previously wrote:

                Seeing that our traditional marriage comes from our religious beliefs, I find it very easy to support traditional marriage while allowing for same-sex marriages in society.

                In addition, my comparison between what we allow for with other religions is a valid comparison. Just as there is nothing in believing that other religions are wrong which causes us to prohibit people from practicing them, so there is nothing in believing that same-sex marriage is wrong that mandates that we prohibit them. As for the word oppose, why is it that preaching the Gospel does not oppose same-sex marriage? After all, in preaching the Gospel, we tell people that they should repent.

                So the problem is in how we want to oppose same-sex marriage. Do we want to rely on preaching the Gospel alone, which is also how we combat the influence of other religions? Or do we want say to gays that we have the right to impose our morality on you through legislation?

                Finally, I think I answered question #1. For not all people who practice same-sex marriage do so for nonreligious reasons. But even for those who do, when we support legislation against it, we claim the right to impose a part of our religion on such people. Unfortunately, it is that word impose that you have no problem with. For people who practice same-sex marriage are imposing nothing on you. It is only your side that is imposing on others.

                • Brian Levie

                  Curt – Please re-read and think about my comments more carefully. I have been asking you questions about your own views; my comments have been clearly focused on trying to understanding your position. More importantly, I have yet to present my views on this subject. In spite of this, you now accuse me of having no problem with imposing my religion on others legislatively; that it is “my side” that is imposing its views on people who practice same-sex marriage. I have to conclude that either you are not able or are not interested in defending your own views and are more interested in attacking a particular viewpoint you assume everyone who questions your position holds. Thank you for taking the time to engage.

          • Curt Day

            Regarding your second set of questions, is it wise and practical to base a law on the exceptions? And with regard to child marriages, what universal age do the scriptures recognize? I believe in terms of our society, 18 is as young as you can be. Finally, there are a variety of reasons why I don’t support interspecies marriages. Regarding your last question, what pandora’s box are we opening if informed consent was not required in marriage?

            • Brian Levie

              Curt- You’ve shifted the discussion here as well. I wanted to know if the reasons you gave for your opposition to each form of non-traditional marriage was removed, would you continue to oppose these various forms of non-traditional marriage. The interspecies question was the only one you actually answered (there area variety of reasons why you don’t support it. That’s fine.) However, the questions you asked me in response (whether it is wise and practical to base a law on exceptions? what universal age for marriage does Scripture recognize? what problems would occur if informed consent was not required in marriage?) are entirely different questions that don’t answer the specific ones I asked you regarding your own views. Let me try again. The primary basis for your opposition to incestuous marriage was health. The primary basis for your opposition to polygamy and child marriage was law. I’m asking if those things were no longer considerations, would you continue to oppose these forms of non-traditional marriages? I’m trying to find out if there’s a moral element to your opposition to these non-traditional forms of marriage.

              • Curt Day

                But in my opinion, there is one reason you can’t remove from marriage. That reason is informed consent between both adults.

                And real question here is, will we allow, which means not prohibit, marriages in society which are not recognized by the Scriptures? We already do so with many remarriages. Why in a nation where we have religious liberty must we prohibit all marriages that are not recognized by the Scriptures? Why must we impose our religious beliefs on unbelievers?

                BTW, my opposition to child marriages is based in the fact that marriage, with all of its ramifications, is to be practiced by 2 adults only whose decision is based on informed consent. That seems to be a fair definition for society.

  • Andrew Alladin

    “…some establishment figures would like to move on.”

    Move on to what? Enforcing the border and reducing illegal immigration? Reducing the staggering rise of welfare dependency? Reducing subsidies to big business? Reducing the amazing increase in college tuition caused by govt student loans and grants? Removing US forces from never-ending nation building ventures? Bringing back manufacturing jobs for people without STEM degrees? Will establishment Republicans be “moving on” to these proposals? What a sad joke.

    Actually, Republicans will never be able to “move on.” The media will never let them by asking the following questions: Should people be free to not provide their services to gay weddings? Should Christian psychiatrists and psychologists be legally allowed to counsel Christians wishing to change their same-sex behavior? Should adoption agencies run by Christians be forced to place babies into gay and lesbian households, etc.? These aren’t mere questions but arguments that need to be settled by law. Democrats (whether as politicians or judges) have embraced pagan sexuality as superior to Christian sexual morality and will never offer any constitutional protection on these matters. There is no turning back for that party.

    What will Republicans do? Some interesting times ahead.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.