Is the Social Conservative Fight Against Gay Marriage Worthwhile?

Last year, Minnesotans opposed to legalized same sex marriage spent $200,000 in a little over five months.  Those donations went towards a campaign to preserve state laws prohibiting legal recognition of gay marriage.  Social conservatives complained that gay marriage supporters had "10 times more" funds to fight.  One said "it's proof that if you spend enough money, you can get legislators to do almost anything."   Despite the tens of millions spent by opponents, legislatures continue to void anti- gay marriage laws.  Sixteen states have taken such laws from the books, eleven by political action instead of through the courts.

Social conservatives argue that legalized gay marriage represents a threat to traditional marriage.  If a state allows a man to marry a man, or a woman to marry a woman, they argue that what is to stop legal recognition of polygamy, or human marriage to animals.  

American marriages certainly face threats to stability.  According to the Centers For Disease Control, from 2004 to 2011, between 840,000 and 880,000 couples divorced every year.  At the same time, the marriage rate per 1,000 people declined by one seventh.  Fewer couples marry and divorces remain constant.

Is gay marriage part of the problem?  It is hard to see how it could be, either logically or statistically.  The statistics came from years that predate the legalized gay marriage surge.  Marriage as an institution was already in trouble.  Also, the social impact of gay marriage simply is not that profound.  A Huffington Post writer in 2011 cited a study that pegged the gay population of the US at around 4 million.  

To put that number in perspective, there are more divorces every four and a half years than there are gay people.  

What has happened to marriage then?  Focus on the Family's Glenn Lutjens puts some of the blame on unrealistic expectations.  Most people's most thorough experience with relationships comes from first hand experience with their parents or parent.  Dysfunctional upbringings could conceive poor or even abusive interpersonal skills.  Or they could lead to a crusade to manufacture a perfect relationship.  Dating, according to Lutjens, creates a false reality.  It has "escape valves" such as ones own home, finances, etc. that are not there during marriage.  

Another problem is cultural.  At least one writer speculates that American romantic comedies have as bad, or an even worse effect on marriage than pornography.  Matt Lewis of Daily Caller writes that individuals instinctively need a deity to reach self-fulfillment.  When modern society has abandoned God, or at least set Him aside, it placed the perfect relationship on that deified pedestal. 

"And popular culture only reinforces this notion, via movies and music.  Unlike porn, this fantasy is not discourages by polite society, and is, in fact, even celebrated."

The counterpart of the romantic comedy fantasy relationship is the one and done ideal.  One mistake leads to a break.  In many movies, television shows, and popular songs, divorce follows a serious violation of the marriage.  It even follows a cooling of feelings of love and commitment between the spouses.  Most marriages require work and forgiveness.  Long marriages rarely escape at least one of the following:  financial problems, cheating, the ebb and flow of feelings of love or attraction, substance abuse issues, etc.  

Again, the abandonment of the Christian ethic may be part of the problem.  The Judeo-Christian ideal of original sin was not meant as a negation of the goodness of humanity, but as a powerful reminder that nobody is perfect.  People can be good and still hurt others, either purposefully, incidentally, or accidentally.  Christ commands forgiveness, which is the only was to ensure a lasting marriage. 

Of course the Bible also teaches self-respect, self-preservation, and free will.  Staying with an abusive, dangerous, or contemptible person who refuses to change is not part of the marriage vow contract.  

If bad cultural perceptions of marriage are not the biggest problem, they certainly rank at the forefront.  But these can be changed.

In California alone, supporters of a gay marriage ban raised over $28 million according to the Christian Coalition. What if part of that $28 million went toward establishing and promoting more pre-marriage counseling?  This used to be done in many churches as a matter of course and is certainly still an option.  Some may want a more secular based venue, and that should be available.  Certainly at the very least, some group seminars that got partners to think about their commitment before making the plunge would help.  

On the popular culture front, realistic marriage must make a comeback.  Breaking Bad's characterization of Hank Schrader took the old Clint Eastwood style rough around the edges hero and put him into a modern marriage.  Schrader started off as an unintentionally condescending, yet very capable and fast rising, DEA agent in a strong marriage.  As the series continues, he grows obsessed with finding a drug kingpin who, unbeknownst to him, happens to be his brother in law.  Schrader suffers a temporarily debilitating physical injury that throws him into a serious depression.  He does, eventually, recover physically and mentally.  Schrader's character is usually annoyed with, but always loves his wife.  No hint of sexual misconduct ever happens.  But both spouses have to grow and deal with each other's flaws and problems.  The final season of the series finds them in their most difficult and isolating situation.  Their love and commitment forged over all the previous struggles binds them together to face their biggest adversary.

Schrader's marriage is a perfect portrait of a successful one.  Lots of struggle, much forgiveness, and standing together in the toughest times.  Why don't more authors, screenwriters, and songwriters celebrate this kind of bond?  

Marriage is an essential element in the fabric of society.  It needs support and it would benefit from more honest portrayals.  The tens of millions of dollars spent now to fight a potentially very rare occurrence would be better spent in the cause of saving traditional marriage from that which truly threatens it.

Full disclosure, I am for civil unions for all couples and getting government out of marriage entirely.

Shifting Gears on the Issues of Gays

Thousands of protesters marched on Washington DC this weekend to pressure Barack Obama and Congress into changing their stances on gay issues, particularly marriage and the military.

Gays have grown disenchanted with the Democratic Party for treating them the same way as they treat other minorities, with platitudes and promises but no action. Likely many also beneath the surface worry about the impact of the higher taxes passed and proposed by the Democratic Congress that will harm small businesses and professionals.

On the issue of marriage the GOP should switch gears. We are at our best when defending freedom and attacking government intereference. As I have stated a few times before, the small government solution is to have civil unions for any two people who wish to create a legal bond. Marriage is left as a religious sacrament (or ritual), and/or a cultural and social event. I do not even have a problem with unsanctioned polygamy, provided that consenting adults are doing it. How is it that government ignores every other alternative lifestyle combination, but doggedly pursues people who practice polygame for religious reasons (not that I want government investigating those practicing alternative lifestyles of any sort if they are consenting adults.) That is a slap in the face of First Amendment religious rights (again, provided that all involved are consenting adults at the time of the match.)

The gay population is much more likely to be entrepreneurial than most other recognized groups. This leaves them very vulnerable to rises in taxes, overregulation, and economic downturns. If purely left to their economic interests, they would vote Republican or Libertarian.

As far as the military is concerned, it ought to be left to that institution itself to determine what its policy is. They have a legitimate fear that sexual relations can break down discipline on an individual and collective basis. Individuals get thrown together and subjected to stress for extended periods, encouraging illicit sexual behavior. That being said, the military ought to find a place for gays somewhere and enforce rigorous discipline upon all while examining whether or not to put acknowledged homosexuals into combat situations. It is not as if people join the military to hook up with other servicepeople. However discipline must be preserved, especially in time of war.

Does this mean that the whole gay agenda should be swallowed hook, line, and sinker? Absolutely not! Extremists that want to teach about gay sex in elementary school need to be stopped. Sexual discussions are inappropriate at young ages. Also sex education later needs to stick to talking about reproduction only and not delve into lifestyle discussions. I also have a problem with legislation that punishes those that attack gays and minorities more than other violent crimes. So-called hate crimes statutes violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. If I hit a guy upside the head with a 2x4, it means that I don't like him regardless of his race, creed, ethnic background, or orientation.

Society has changed considerably in the past twenty years. The Republican Party has an opportunity to seize the anti-Big Government mandate again. It cannot do so if it gets bogged down in enforcing social restrictions. Will we lose the social conservatives if we make this shift? Not if we couple it with a reaffirmation of our anti-abortion position. Everyone deserves the right to life. Thomas Jefferson wrote it and most Republicans still believe it. There is no such thing as a situation that is too poor or dysfunctional for a child. Read about Alexander Hamilton's birth and upbringing. Some of our greatest people have come from much worse situations than that and used the lessons learned growing up to make themselves great.

The point is that our party wins when it supports freedom and rights. Backing off the gay mariage issue will only help, especially with young voters.

Time For the Republican Party to Get Back to Basics

The Republican Party since its birth in the 1850s has traditionally stood in some way or another for rights. At that point its rights platform emphasized the right to not be owned just because of your skin color. The Grand Old Party has always been at its best and truest when arguing a positive platform of the right of each individual to enjoy what was promised by the Declaration of Independence and enshrined by the Constitution.

Constitution? Declaration of Independence? Even now that they are terrorist manifestos, they ought to be easy sells to the American people in the upcoming elections right?

The art of selling (and it is an art despite pollsters trying to turn it into a science) requires focus. Right now the Republican Party lacks cohesive focus. Remember when we stormed back in 1994? We had a strong and deep vision that was well articulated. It was based upon the political values and economic principles that have always been Republican strong suits.

We believe in the right of individuals to choose within the law except when those choices result in direct bodily harm to another individual.

We believe that America must retain a strong role in world affairs because we realize if we do not, more unpalatable nations will rise to the fore.

We believe that when the government is knee deep in the private sector instead of an impartial referee, it leads to favoritism and corruption. The Credit Mobilier scandal of the 1870s sprang from direct government involvement in railroads. Lots of politicians stuck their hands into that cookie jar, including future President James Garfield.

Obama is gutting the Constitution and is a real threat to our natural rights. We need to focus our message on a positive alternative vision. Right now we are simply reacting and muddying the water with other issues.

Social conservatives will argue with this, but it is time to jettison gay marriage as a major issue. This is my own opinion, not Gary Howell's. This issue contradicts our general stands on limited government and individual choice. Now on the issue of extending sexual education into elementary school with the idea of teaching children in ways that contradict parental prerogatives, that is an issue of rights where Republicans stand on firm ideological ground. Honestly what are we going to do if gays want to call themselves married? Put shock collars on them? The private sector already recognizes these relationships for insurance and other purposes. This issue muddies the waters and drives away to the Democrats many victims of Obama's stealing, I mean, tax policies.

Abortion, on the other hand, is an issue we need to continue to fight. It is a human rights issue. Children have the right to live, regardless. When the Declaration of Independence says that every person has the right to life, it gets no plainer than that. That is why this is not only a social conservative issue and should not be fought as one. We can even take this one into traditionally Democratic territory. One in three babies aborted is black. That is an astounding statistic. It should be better publicized by the Republican Party.

It's very simple. We only need to get back to the ideals upon which this country was founded. We separated from Britain for economic and individual freedom. We made those ideals our law. They are based upon the right to choose. If we stand by these two founding documents and fight on issues that flow directly from them, we are always strong.