Thank you for pointing out this article. I read it, and of course there are conservatives who support the Walker decision, just as there are liberals who don't agree with the decision (see http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/08/11/2010-08-11_the_radical_gay_rights_ruling_leading_supporter_of_samesex_marriage_challenges_p.html)
Jonathan Rauch is an author and Brookings scholar. He is a gay man in a same sex marriage authorized by the District of Columbia, and he is also a critic of the San Francisco decision on Prop 8.
Margaret Hoover misunderstands Conservative opposition to the decision. First, she thinks that that conservatives should support gay marriage for political reasons, but for conservatives, politics does not form the basis of their opposition.
She also thinks that Republicans were on the wrong side of the Civil Rights issue. She needs to get a clue. It was the Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act over the opposition of large numbers of Democrats.
Referring to your third paragraph, and as I have said, the conservative position on gay marriage is based first and foremost on religious convictions.
I thought it interesting that she did not dwell on the moral aspect of the question. My frustration with conservatives remains high not because of their position, but rather because of their near refusal to state their real objections. Bringing God into the fray seems unbecoming yet is the very heart of the conservative position.
Cal Thomas wrote an op-ed this past weekend that excoriated the judge while citing his own religious position abundantly. I appreciated that.
I meant to comment on the real reason conservatives take certain positions, including opposition to gay marriage. My comments get overly long sometimes, so I cut back on all the things I could write about.
As you point out, it is true the conservatives often shy away from stating the real reasons for their opposition to gay marriage. One of the reasons is most certainly religious. Then why do conservatives not openly say so? Because conservatives (I guess I should say religious conservatives) know that most liberals would not accept the premise of their argument, i.e., that God says that gay marriage should not be allowed. Above all, religious conservatives want to win the argument in a manner that would convince others. Just saying, "Well, God says so" does not convince the opposition of anything.
Also, religious conservatives believe if God says something is such and such, they should be able to demonstrate it on intellectual grounds. Although I think this is sometimes an impossible task (the mortal mind cannot know or understand Gods reasoning for all things), FARMS and many BYU family researchers definitely believe in their ability to make intellectual arguments that make sense of God's commands.
Incidentally, I have been cogitating about a post about the ability of the mortal mind to know or understand Gods reasoning, which I hope to be an apolitical post. Time is always the problem.
First, I look forward to your thoughts regarding the mortal mind and the notion of such minds interpreting God's intentions. I fully understand the time limitation aspect of trying to pursue such interests. (I am behind on writing out my thoughts on American socialism.)
Second, I think that religious conservatives are not eager to make religious arguments not because they fear liberals won't accept them, but because they know that they are just not viable in a secular society wherein the division of church/state is so highly respected. I know that two word "church/state" does not necessarily mean "religious/secular", but the days when overt religious grounds are used as basisses for the making of public policy either criminal or civil are over in the western world and in our country. Conservatives, to their dismay I am sure, know this and are constrained to avoid citing religious strictures in their political arguments. To do so disqualifies their arguments almost immediately. The judge in the Proposition Eight debate was meticulous in his dissecting of the terribly feeble nature of the pro-prop arguments. There simply are no viable non-religiously based arguments to present. Rauch said as much in his editorial.
I am aware of FARMS and other movements that try to intellectually validate conservative religious positions as they relate to public policy. For the most part, they are very unsuccessful. Time and its analysis usually hack away at their claims until the claims are eventually abandoned. The march of history does not favor them. However I admire the fact that they respond to the urge to intellectually understand the positions that religion imposes on them (I think that it is a fair thing to say that religion requires acceptance of its positions.)
In that spirit, I admire your anxiousness to think about the positions you hold whatever their origins. But if they are religiously held, I fear that you will run into a lot of cliffs that will require you to stop questioning and leap with faith to conclusions that can't be defended in any other way but to declare 'because God says so'.
4 comments:
Thank you for pointing out this article. I read it, and of course there are conservatives who support the Walker decision, just as there are liberals who don't agree with the decision (see http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/08/11/2010-08-11_the_radical_gay_rights_ruling_leading_supporter_of_samesex_marriage_challenges_p.html)
Jonathan Rauch is an author and Brookings scholar. He is a gay man in a same sex marriage authorized by the District of Columbia, and he is also a critic of the San Francisco decision on Prop 8.
Margaret Hoover misunderstands Conservative opposition to the decision. First, she thinks that that conservatives should support gay marriage for political reasons, but for conservatives, politics does not form the basis of their opposition.
She also thinks that Republicans were on the wrong side of the Civil Rights issue. She needs to get a clue. It was the Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act over the opposition of large numbers of Democrats.
Referring to your third paragraph, and as I have said, the conservative position on gay marriage is based first and foremost on religious convictions.
I thought it interesting that she did not dwell on the moral aspect of the question. My frustration with conservatives remains high not because of their position, but rather because of their near refusal to state their real objections. Bringing God into the fray seems unbecoming yet is the very heart of the conservative position.
Cal Thomas wrote an op-ed this past weekend that excoriated the judge while citing his own religious position abundantly. I appreciated that.
I will read Rauch's writing.
I meant to comment on the real reason conservatives take certain positions, including opposition to gay marriage. My comments get overly long sometimes, so I cut back on all the things I could write about.
As you point out, it is true the conservatives often shy away from stating the real reasons for their opposition to gay marriage. One of the reasons is most certainly religious. Then why do conservatives not openly say so? Because conservatives (I guess I should say religious conservatives) know that most liberals would not accept the premise of their argument, i.e., that God says that gay marriage should not be allowed. Above all, religious conservatives want to win the argument in a manner that would convince others. Just saying, "Well, God says so" does not convince the opposition of anything.
Also, religious conservatives believe if God says something is such and such, they should be able to demonstrate it on intellectual grounds. Although I think this is sometimes an impossible task (the mortal mind cannot know or understand Gods reasoning for all things), FARMS and many BYU family researchers definitely believe in their ability to make intellectual arguments that make sense of God's commands.
Incidentally, I have been cogitating about a post about the ability of the mortal mind to know or understand Gods reasoning, which I hope to be an apolitical post. Time is always the problem.
First, I look forward to your thoughts regarding the mortal mind and the notion of such minds interpreting God's intentions. I fully understand the time limitation aspect of trying to pursue such interests. (I am behind on writing out my thoughts on American socialism.)
Second, I think that religious conservatives are not eager to make religious arguments not because they fear liberals won't accept them, but because they know that they are just not viable in a secular society wherein the division of church/state is so highly respected. I know that two word "church/state" does not necessarily mean "religious/secular", but the days when overt religious grounds are used as basisses for the making of public policy either criminal or civil are over in the western world and in our country. Conservatives, to their dismay I am sure, know this and are constrained to avoid citing religious strictures in their political arguments. To do so disqualifies their arguments almost immediately. The judge in the Proposition Eight debate was meticulous in his dissecting of the terribly feeble nature of the pro-prop arguments. There simply are no viable non-religiously based arguments to present. Rauch said as much in his editorial.
I am aware of FARMS and other movements that try to intellectually validate conservative religious positions as they relate to public policy. For the most part, they are very unsuccessful. Time and its analysis usually hack away at their claims until the claims are eventually abandoned. The march of history does not favor them. However I admire the fact that they respond to the urge to intellectually understand the positions that religion imposes on them (I think that it is a fair thing to say that religion requires acceptance of its positions.)
In that spirit, I admire your anxiousness to think about the positions you hold whatever their origins. But if they are religiously held, I fear that you will run into a lot of cliffs that will require you to stop questioning and leap with faith to conclusions that can't be defended in any other way but to declare 'because God says so'.
Post a Comment