The Sense in Being a Conservative Supporter of Gay Marriage

John McCainEarlier this week, commentator Meghan McCain (daughter of U.S. Senator John McCain) received a lot of online attention after expressing her thoughts on Mark Sanford’s special-election victory over opponent Elizabeth Colbert Busch.

In reaction to Sanford’s recapturing of his old seat in Congress, McCain tweeted: “Any Republican that voted for Mark Sanford in South Carolina but is against gay marriage is an unbelievable hypocrite.”

I know her reasoning is a bit tough to follow, so I’ll explain it: McCain is an outspoken supporter of gay marriage. Her implication was that people who oppose gay marriage (on the grounds that it defies the sanctity of marriage) are hypocrites for voting for someone who cheated on his wife (because there is no clearer violation of that sanctity than infidelity).

Conservatives had a lot of fun tormenting McCain over her statement. Many quickly and correctly pointed out (albeit in highly sarcastic terms) that her logic would only make sense if applied to single-issue voters whose single-issue was their opposition to gay marriage on the grounds of protecting traditional marriage.

Now, there might be a handful of voters who would fall into that narrow category, but I kind of doubt it. And I’m not even sure Sanford campaigned on an opposition to gay marriage in the first place. Even if he did, I don’t see the relevance to McCain’s point.

I think it’s safe to conclude that Miss McCain just made a thoughtless, dopey statement – one that, in my opinion, is pretty representative of her political commentaries on a number of issues.

Unfortunately, I believe her statement was also representative of how a lot of people approach the issue of gay marriage. Many seem to believe that an endorsement of a candidate is also an endorsement of their views on gay marriage. I have a few liberal friends who even told me prior to the 2012 election that they couldn’t vote for Mitt Romney because he opposed gay marriage. That position makes no sense to me, and it never has.

As I’ve mentioned before in my columns, I support gay marriage. Yet, I’ve never factored that stance into my evaluation of a political candidate. Why not? Because it’s completely irrelevant. Politicians don’t get to define marriage. State-wide elections on specific changes to marriage laws do. And I don’t see that changing anytime soon. Even if the Supreme Court decides to do something groundbreaking with its ruling on California’s Proposition 8, I can’t imagine a scenario in which representative government will ever play a role in this decision.

So if you’re voting for a candidate based on their stance on marriage, whether it be a local congressman or the president of the United States, all you’re doing is voting on someone’s personal opinion and not an actual policy. You might as well be voting for them because they like the same television show that you do. Yet, somehow, this issue has been used successfully for years by politicians on both sides of the aisle.

Now, maybe it’s different if you’re of the opinion that anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot, and you can’t possibly vote for a bigot. But if that were the case, anyone who voted for either Barack Obama or John McCain in the 2008 was voting for a bigot. I just don’t put a lot of stock in that charge. Assuming bigotry is narrow-minded. There are good, fair-minded people on both sides of the issue.

I feel that the distinction between a candidate’s opinion and the policies they can enact is an important one that people should consider. Individual voters have a far greater say on the future of gay marriage than politicians do. Someone like me has the choice to vote for the legalization of gay marriage in my state of Colorado, while also voting for political candidates who (regardless of their opinion on gay marriage) will pursue a smaller government, pro-growth policies, reducing the national debt, a strong military, personal responsibility, and other fundamentals that I believe are important.

Now, on the topic of the issue itself, here’s why I believe it makes perfect sense for a conservative to support gay marriage (hopefully I’ll come across as more coherent than Meghan McCain did):

Along with the distinction I described above (a candidate’s opinion vs. the policies they can enact), I believe that there is another important distinction that people should think about. That distinction is the one between legal marriage and the spiritual commitment of marriage. To me, they are two very different things.

Legal marriage, as in the state legally recognizing the contract of marriage between two people, is technically just a civil union. That contract has nothing to do with spirituality or religion. It’s the beliefs, commitments, and relationships that people bring to their marriages that define how they are recognized within a particular faith. In other words, a government’s definition of marriage is not God’s definition of marriage. I don’t think anyone can honestly make the case that it is. So when people cite the words of the Bible or other religious views as their reason for why gay marriage should not be permitted, I just can’t figure out that argument. After all, atheists get married all the time, and no one seems to care about that.  Why isn’t religion invoked when it comes to them?

It’s true that the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin, but I’ve always found it interesting, as a Christian, that it is specifically described as such only twice. If you compare that with acts described as sins far more extensively in the Bible – including ones that each and every one of us commit on an almost daily basis – I just can’t figure out why homosexuality is such a stickler for so many people.

Some people oppose gay marriage in the interest of preserving the family structure in our society, which is what former presidential candidate, Rick Santorum (along with many other social conservatives) is big on. I respect that viewpoint, but disagree with it.

The way I see it, that stance actually falls more in line with liberalism than it does conservatism.

After all, conservatives are the ones who typically believe that the freedom of individuals needs to be defended and promoted. They believe in letting people live their lives the way they see fit, out from under the thumb of government, as long as they’re not infringing on other people’s rights or creating a public safety concern.

Liberals, on the other hand, believe in reining in the freedoms of individuals for the sake of perceived benefits to society. They’re the ones who are always trying to save people from themselves, and rationalizing their actions by insisting that what they’re doing is for the greater good. Liberals are the nannies and busybodies, like Michael Bloomberg, who think they know what’s best for everyone else and impose their will on the public through policies.

So, with same-sex marriage not being a public-safety concern, and not infringing on other people’s rights (it certainly doesn’t affect my marriage to my wife), I don’t see why a pro gay-marriage stance is anything but consistent with conservative principles.

Call me crazy… And I’m sure several of you will.

Author Bio:

John Daly couldn't have cared less about world events and politics until the horrific 9/11 terrorist attacks changed his perspective. Since then, he's been deeply engaged in the news of the day with a particular interest in how that news is presented. Realizing the importance of the media in a free, democratic society, John has long felt compelled to identify media injustices when he sees them. With a B.S. in Business Administration, and a 16 year background in software and web development, John has found that his real passion is for writing. His first novel, entitled "From a Dead Sleep", is now on sale! He lives in Northern Colorado with his wife and two children. Like John on Facebook. Follow John on Twitter.
Author website: http://www.johndalybooks.com/
  • Bob O

    Mr. Langley, I have been reading your posts and I think your arguments are clear and eminently reasonable. I can’t understand why Mr. Childers has such a difficult time following you.
    The vast majority of civilizations have recognized heterosexual marriage and have not viewed homosexual unions as equal. The vast majority of sociological studies affirm that children with a stable home with a mother and father are superior in almost every way to the fragmented situations that result from unbridled sexual promiscuity.
    Our society has every reason to promote healthy families and encourage restraint in areas of sexual irresponsibility, just as much as we would encourage young people to study in college or some equivalent institution to prepare themselves to be productive citizens.
    Gays deserve equal rights in every area as citizens, and gay unions that are legally contractual should have rights that are appropriate for their needs. But gay marriage can never be considered equal to heterosexual marriage.

  • Brent Childers

    Good case for why Republicans should support marriage equality. In reference to comment on bigotry, I submit the bigotry expressed by many religious-minded people is a unique and harmful form of bigotry in that it is religion-based bigotry. This form of bigotry places a religious and moral stamp of disapproval on the very being of a gay or lesbian individual and inflicts immense emotional, psychological and spiritual harm on the target of such bigotry, especially gay and lesbian youth. I would also add that the case for socially conservative Christian voters is that treating your neighbor as you yourself would like to be treated is the Christ-like position. If you believe marriage is a worthwhile social contract, then a Christ-like attitude calls us to want share marriage’s benefits with our gay and lesbian neighbors – that goes for the spiritual benefits as well.

    • Brian Fr Langley

      What a load of rubbish. the social contract you mention is specifically designed to protect the monogamous rights of the two principals to the contract. The reason is the enormous drain on resources caused by the consequences of a male/female sexual union. (babies) From a community stand point the procreative couple are seen to take responsibility for their own progeny. (thus freeing the broader community or other family members, from having to do it) Homo-sexual relations are not procreative in nature so no such contract is required. The only purpose for such a contract in this second instance, is to debase the contract in the first. Without an enforceable community contract for ensuring the monogamous rights of sexually active adults, the results are a descent into barbarism. (not caring for one’s own offspring) Society is already paying an enormous social and economic cost for abortions and fatherless children.

      • Brent Childers

        Your post has little to do with the thematics contained in the original article or my reply. One of the themes touched upon by John Daly was how religious belief is used by some social conservatives to justify their opposition to marriage equality. My reply was responding to that theme. But aside from your post’s misdirection, I might add that it makes for much more engaging dialogue for the readers of this blog if you state specifically what you disagree with instead of just throwing out an unfounded “rubbish” characterization. Here’s how it works: I consider your thinking behind your statement about “monogamous rights” to be rather obtuse because a) it appears to be a manufactured term and one that I’m quite sure many of the readers do not understand; and b) the procreation-derived thoughts you are expressing as some type of informed opinion isn’t informed by the anthropological history of social relations. Rosemary Joyce, a noted anthropologist, recently penned:

        “Stable societies have been based on many different kinds of social relations that provide for the birth, care, and education of children, as well as the many other activities that marriage covers in modern US society: joint property ownership, joint medical and end of life care, joint taxation, none of which– contrary to the somewhat bizarre, reductive view of marriage argued before the Supreme Court – are about ‘procreation’.

        The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.”

        • Brian Fr Langley

          Most of what your saying is just plain untrue. Marriage (a community or family enforceable compact) has been integral to virtually every civilization that has a written history. In the book the Pelican history of the world the writer affirms marriages in ancient Sumeria would look very like our marriages of today. That is they were a community enforceable compact even 5000 years ago. Read about all the emerging civilizations and you’ll find a similar arrangement. Sexual relations that led to pro-creational outcomes we’re severely proscribed by either their families or their communities. While some small communities may have engaged in other family arrangements, this has been the exception not the norm. And why the exception, because without explicit protections for monogamous rights, societies fall apart. However much you might wish for it, men will not typically expend their labour resources for children not there own. As to the religious aspect, the three modern monotheistic religions are typically known for their compassion towards widows and orphans (which in days gone by meant husbandless women and fatherless children.

          • Brent Childers

            You lost me here Brian: However much you might wish for it, men will not typically expend their labour resources for children not there own.

            You obviously do not personally know any gay fathers. I have met many and they care for their sons and daughters with great devotion, commitment and love. Do you sincerely believe allowing same-sex couples to commit themselves to the social contract of marriage will end society? When you look at American society today, you can find many ills. None of those ills are caused by gay people, gay marriage or embracing gay and lesbian individuals as fully equal citizens and fully deserving of all the same rights and freedoms enjoyed by others. Your arguing points appear disjointed and flawed and seem to be encased in a close-mindedness. I’m not sure why you cannot open your mind and heart to allowing gay and lesbian couples the freedom to share all the goodness of marriage. I can only suspect that you place a degree of immorality on them. No one is buying the argument that allowing gay marriage will demean the institution of marriage. That’s because we heterosexuals know that we have done a great job of that all by ourselves.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            You used the term “the goodness of marriage”? So what exactly is this goodness of marriage? From a societal stand point, it is not the licensing of copulating couples. Rather, it’s the implicit right conferred on progeny to be raised by their own parents. Parents who’ve compacted to assure their children, are the full beneficiaries of the typically scarce resources of the both of them. Without this type of compact, copulating couples would flood communities with unwanted and uncared for progeny. Sound familiar. We live in a free society. Non pro-creational couples have absolutely no need of contractual monogamous obligations. The real reason behind the left’s support of unfettered sexual promiscuity and gay marriage, is the attempt to destroy traditional American values and replace them with Marxist ones. (read Marx if you don’t believe me) He saw marriage and family as the production tools of the bourgeoisie. Today’s leftists are merely echoing Marxist thought and teaching.

  • Random_acct

    No one should ever underestimate the capability of the human mind to rationalize away anything. Your post is a prime example. No, there is absolutely no doubt about how the scriptures view homosexual behavior. But to be very clear, it is sin just like adultery is sin, there is no hierarchy that places homosexual behavior as worse than many (most sins).

  • Random_acct

    You are spot on. The gay marriage issue will result in the destruction of religious freedom as well. Mark my words.

    I, for one, will never vote for a leader who supports or promotes gay marriage. It is irrational, illogical, and has no usefulness to society.

  • Random_acct

    By your logic, why be concerned about the guy who murders someone across the country and then is allowed to get away with it by the local authorities? After all, it will likely never have an impact on your life. You are missing the point about gay marriage.

  • bba1950

    She is such an airhead-Who cares what she thinks and why exactly does it matter what she thinks——-

  • ArkadyArkady

    It seems to me that even being able to entertain a concept like “gay marriage” is evidence that senses have been left standing at a station – in the rain, and on a very cold day. It’s not marriage that’s being redefined, but the fundamental essence of what it means to be human. And mark my words, supporting this broadly will endanger society. The result will end with the abolition of free speech under “hate speech” laws, it will introduce more state control over parental guidance where their children are concerned, and make people who disagree criminals if they say they don’t like it – they will have little control over what their children may learn in school. In that very easily realized future, reading the book of Romans chapter one from a pulpit may well put a congregation’s existence in jeapordy. And those are just a few of the implications.

    It would be great if this were the “Live and Let Live” scenario Mr. Daly is describing -but from what I have seen transpire in states were gay marriage laws have been sanctioned, it is anything but. This is erring on the side of nice, and like nice – but I think Neville was nicer than Winston Churchill, and I know how that worked out.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    I have a little more time now, so Mr. conservative, let’s talk about sex. Sex it turns out is an extra-ordinarily potent force on planet earth. (humans are rapidly approaching 10 billion, perhaps even this century, now that’s potent). For the most part (not including test tubes) all 10 billion of us, will be here because of sex. Notwithstanding the fact we all like orgasm’s, is that fact that this happy pleasurable experience creates a phenomenal drain on our resources. (I mean babies suck, literally) For millennia civilization through law, religion, and just being smart people, have repressed sexuality. (wait isn’t that a dirty word in today’s liberal lexicon REPRESSED SEXUALITY). Or is it a civilizing idea that transcends sex from just having pleasure, to sex as bringing forth a new generation. Virtually all civilizations have agreed, sex was to be repressed into lawful (community sanctioned) sexual unions, (marriage) as opposed to unlawful sexual unions. (adultery) That is, IT DOESN’T TAKE A COMMUNITY TO RAISE A CHILD, apparently it takes a community to make you take on your own responsibilities. In America today (I’m Canadian by the way) much of the population exposes the utter folly of un-repressed sexuality. Some communities find themselves in a vortex of family destruction. Now to be clear this has not one thing to do with skin colour or ethnicity, It has every thing to do with being orphans. As is clear by the previously mentioned vortex (a downward spiral) orphans beget more orphans. The stats are truly shocking, as an example, some 73% of all black children are now being born into single parent families. Being raised by my single mother on the mean streets of east Vancouver, I know that she lost all control of me around age 12. Fatherless 12 year olds (as it turns out) are very poor decision makers. Happily for me my friends had fathers who would paddle them if they got home late or into other trouble (I know, I know, paddling is not allowed anymore) so being bored I just went home. Just imagine the fun I could have had if there were two of me or three of me??? Again the stats bear out the cold hard facts. Orphan boys (fatherless) don’t graduate, earn far less, and face significantly higher incarceration rates. Orphan girls face poverty and statistically very early pregnancies (and so the cycle continues and the vortex speeds up) Yet despite the stats showing western civilizations deepening descent into barbarism, (abandoning and aborting our own children) the chattering liberal classes keep calling for less and less sexual repression. Sex can not merely be regarded as only a happy little orgasm. It must be regarded as the incredibly potent force it is, and return to the civilizing proscriptions that built one of the greatest societies humanity has ever known. Yes sex is for pleasure, but it should be for pleasure in lawful unions, designed to constrain procreative forces to proper resource allocation. The science is crystal clear, children raised by their two parents are far likelier to reach their maximum individual potential than children who are not. An ideology (like gay marriage)that attempts to decouple sex from procreation, leads only to the abyss. Remember we’re humans, we’re not beasts.

  • http://twitter.com/eRtwngr eRightWinger

    Government on e had an interest in encouraging marriage. It as when the woman made the sacrifice to bear and rear children and the man caried the sole burden of providing income. As tha model has hanged, one could say the government no longer has such an interest as both parties can obtain employment and benefits. So in conferring the false term marriage on this non martial arrangement, he government is giving benefits where no sacrifice or reciprocal benefit to society exists. It becomes just Nother liberal redistribution and welfare scheme. It should be left solely to Churches to define marriage, which is where it originated.

  • potvin

    What makes homosexuals think they can redefine marriage? They can easily call what they are doing civil unions, why must they call it marriage? They’re trying to normalize something that is abnormal. They can call it marriage until the end of time but it will never make it so.

    • John Daly

      Replace “homosexuals” with “interracial couples” in your post above, and you might have a different perspective.

      • alanwillingham

        There really aren’t that many interracial couples that are the same gender. They are overwhelmingly one male and one female… Blue and Yellow are both colors, but desperately wanting Yellow to be defined as Blue is an ideological desire, not a logical fact.

        • John Daly

          Is this really your rebuttal?

          • Random_acct

            The point is that marriage is both descriptive and “by definition” a male/female proposition. It always has been, for some very good reasons that are best for a thriving society.

            A rock is not a tree, for example, no matter how hard some might wish to redefine those items for whatever purpose they would want to do that.

      • Random_acct

        No. There is no proof that one is born gay. There is proof that one is born of a particular race.

  • Larry blaspheming liberalism

    Just like Bernie a few weeks ago, you miss the main reason marriage is one man + one woman:

    It is patterned on the biological unit of sexual reproduction.

    All of the laws concerning same-sex “marriage” (or “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships”) contain two restrictions:
    1) two people, and
    2) not near relatives.

    But if we toss the requirement of male and female, there is no longer any foundation on which to rest either of those restrictions. Therefore, keeping those two restrictions without their foundation is indefensible. “Marriage” can thus mean anything, and thus mean nothing — which liberals are too dishonest to admit is their ultimate goal.

    I have YET to find anyone, including Mr. Goldberg, who can justify the limit of “couples” after removing the basis for it, namely the pattern for the biological unit of sexual reproduction.

    Goldberg, McCain, and you are all wrong.

    • John Daly

      Again, we’re talking about the government’s definition of marriage, not the spiritual one. Why is it the government’s role to pattern legal contracts based on someone’s capacity to reproduce? What about people who are sterile?

      When interracial marriage was legalized, it didn’t open a floodgate for threesome marriages and family marrying family.

      How is gay-marriage a pretext to either of those? The argument makes no sense.

      • Larry blaspheming liberalism

        Your response is fraudulent.

        First: *you* raised the red herring of “spiritual,” not me. This raises suspicions about your being a “conservative.”

        Second: you avoided my question: apart from one man + one woman, why have the other restrictions on marriage? Why can’t several people form a single union? Why can’t a father marry his son (or daughter)? Answer the question — or admit that you don’t have an answer. I’ve been asking the question for 15+ years and have yet to get an answer.

        The “interracial” canard is bogus, and you know it. Racial restrictions were not the basis for the other restrictions. One man + one woman is. Interracial marriage has occurred throughout recorded history, but always male + female.

        • John Daly

          Fraudulent? Suspicions? Easy, Tiger. I’m just putting forth an opinion.

          Your question has no logic behind it, which is what I pointed out.

          Please explain to me how marriage between two consenting adults is in anyway a pretext to marriage between an adult and a minor? How is it a pretext toward polygamy or family marrying family? How is gay marriage a step TOWARD any of those. Was interracial marriage a step toward any of those? Because before it was legalized, people were putting forth the same argument about it that you are now about gay marriage.

          You say that racial restrictions were not the basis for the other restrictions. I agree. And I believe the same applies to gay marriage.

          I don’t believe that “well that’s the way it’s always been” is a particularly good argument to deny gay marriage.

          • dave davies

            John. I think you must think spiritually, to a certain extent, on this issue. I believe in a creator. I can’t see how the countless examples of complicated order in the universe can exist by accident. As the creator requires order, he makes man and woman with the main purpose of procreation. He rejects a mating of a man with a man, and likewise women because it destroys the design and order of creation. If there is no creator, then there is no moral code, no design, no order. you might as well do as Larry says, and mate with multiple partners, with your daughter, with the family dog. By the way, where do we get our moral code, and when we start tearing it down, where will it all end, and do you really want to live in that world?

          • John Daly

            I believe in a creator too… a creator who created not just heterosexuals but also homosexuals. But what I’m talking about is a legal, governmental definition of marriage as opposed to the spiritual definition.

            That’s one of the big points I made in my column. If people don’t want to recognize gay marriage in the context of religion, that’s fine with me. But why must we insist that the government not recognize it, purely in the context of a legal contract?

          • dave davies

            Did the creator also make thieves, and murderers, rapist and child molestors, or are these people who reject the moral code to do what they determine is their desire, and should our government recognize them as well, instead of calling their actions a deviation from what is normal behavior. We should make a world where all variations of people groups are treated fairly, but I am not willing to legitimize what has for centuries has been considered morally wrong.

          • Larry blaspheming liberalism

            You accuse me of “no logic,” but your opinion demonstrates a lack of it.

            I have asked you twice, and you have dodged twice: Why is marriage limited to “two” people? Your response used the word “two,” but you have yet to justify that restriction. Either
            A. Justify the restriction (from logic, not belief); or
            B. Admit that, having removed the basis in one man + one woman, the restriction is no longer justified.

            You again distract by bringing in the issue of “a minor,” which I didn’t discuss. A “son (or daughter)” can easily be an adult, thereby fitting into your “two consenting adults.” So why prevent a parent from marrying an adult child? (It would be an interesting way to avoid estate taxes.) Again, justify the restriction — or admit that you can’t.

            You still keep the canard of interracial marriage, which has existed throughout known history. (Most of us are interracial and don’t even know it, because “race” is not a clearly definable term.) Provide evidence that “people were putting forth the same argument about it that you are now about gay marriage” (i.e., concerning mulitple-partner or intra-family unions). Or admit you don’t have it.

            So: justify the restrictions — or admit that you can’t.

          • Brent Childers

            In response to Larry the blasphemer, the original judge in the iconic Virginia v. Loving case on miscegenation laws, used biblical scripture to justify his ruling that interracial marriages should be illegal in Virginia. I do not know Larry’s age, but apparently he needs a history lesson – the Bible has been used to justify and promote religion-based bigotry toward Native Americans, women and African Americans. Read the Southern Baptist Convention’s 1995 racial reconciliation statement. Read the Pope’s 2000 apology to women. In response to his question about marriage being between two people, that indeed has been the cultural norm since about 1500 AD when the church decided it would no longer sanction marriages that involved one man and multiple women. For a very long time prior to that, marriages between more than two people was the norm and it seemed to have served society and God (read the Old Testament) very well.

          • Larry blaspheming liberalism

            Brent has multiple inaccuracies:

            1. I am well aware of how religion (not just the Bible) has been used to justify bigotry. The most pernicious religion these days is Political Correctness, which has become a cult. Dissenting from, or even questioning its basic views is considered blasphemy and sacrilege (of course, they use the terms “hate” and “bigotry” instead). Questioning conservatism or Christianity without equally questioning liberalism and the Holy State Religion of Political Correctness is hypocrisy and dishonesty.

            2. I have not based my argument on any religion, religious text, or religious teaching. Even Albania in its officially atheist days limited marriage to one man + one woman.

            3. In “one man and multiple women,” the women are not married to each other. If the man were to die, there would not be any marital units left. This differs from the three-person marriage in the Netherlands, where if the man dies, the two women would still be married to each other.

  • ksp48

    “There are good, fair-minded people on both sides of the issue.”

    Not anymore. There is too much political capital to be had by demonizing anyone who disagrees with any position. While not invented by Obama and the left, its certainly been perfected by them and to great success. Remember, Bush (and every other intelligence source in the world) can’t simply be wrong. Oh no, he must have “lied”. You can';t be worried about millennia old institutions. You must be a “bigot”. You can’t be successful, since “you didn’t build that” and you are not paying “your fair share”. And on and on and on.

  • stmichrick

    I’ve observed that there are 2 premises for opposition to gay marriage; first, from those that are repulsed by homosexual behavior and those that perform it and second, from those that think that the law should promote the ideal (heterosexual union) for raising children.

    The first is easily ridiculed by the Left in the media as bigotry, backward thinking and unhip. The second they prefer not to deal with except to say that the ideal is not always available for certain children and not everyone who marries plans to have children anyway. True enough but no reason to re-order society.

    The main arguments for changing the laws are also twofold; first, attainment of legitimacy of a minority, yet now fashionable, sexual persuasion and second, equality of economic benefits for all.

    The most constructive way out of this POLITICAL dilemma came from Rand Paul; take the word ‘married’ out of the tax code and retain its meaning as a pillar of civilization.

  • FloridaJim

    Homosexual marriage is more rung on the progressive ladder to destroy America’s moral values and culture. It is a long road but they are very close now with religion, Christianity, illegals, perversion of every kind,, children accepting no authority, global warming scam as truth, unending taxes to support progressive policies and over 50% of the population among a list of 100 items they planned to attack. go to a search engine and put in Democrats plan to destroy America and learn the facts and the tactics.

  • Drew Page

    Why are the comments of a politician’s kid newsworthy? Who cares what she says? I would put her opinions right up there with Dennis Rodman’s about N. Korea and Kim Jung Un. Sure, everyone has a right to their opinions and to express them. But that doesn’t make them newsworthy.

    • John Daly

      What she says isn’t important, but I used her as an example because she is representative of how many people think on this topic. It was merely a lead-in to the point I wanted to write about.

  • S. in dc

    Thank you!

  • Bryan OH

    Megan McCain would be a nobody if it were not for her father but she’s not smart enough to realize this!

  • http://www.facebook.com/randy.james.184 Randy James

    I consider the debate over gay-marriage a waste of time. I don’t oppose it (in the sense that I don’t oppose the general concept of “civil-unions”, hence I see no practical reason to deny them to same-sex couples). On the other hand, people who advocate “gay-marriage as a right, not a privilege” tend to be the same people who believe “health-care, foodstamps, and a guaranteed income…” (among myriad other “socially just” entitlements), are “rights” as well. So, while I may agree with her objective, I oppose Ms. McCain’s standing to pursue it.

    If I wanted to oppose gay-marriage, I could easily put forward a compelling argument against it, simply by taking the arguments in favor of it to their absurd extreme. Take any and all aspects of the “case for gay marriage”, and extend them to the question:

    Should any number of individuals “who truly love one another and wish to commit their lives to each other” be allowed to form a civil-union (aka: ‘a marriage’)?

    This issue was confronted over a period of decades in the 19th century, and ultimately resolved in 1890 when the Mormon Church capitulated to the will of Congress by issuing it’s Manifesto disavowing plural marriage (as a tacit precondition for Utah’s statehood). I find it ironic that a substantial segment of our population now both supports this very egalitarian expansion of the traditional definition of “marriage” (gay marriage), and (coincidentally) happens to be inordinately hostile towards the Mormon religion, which they generally describe as a “cult”, and towards which they routinely engage in a “politically correct” form of outright bigotry.

    If gay marriage should be legal, should not plural marriage be legal as well? Who is to say how many people may justifiably pledge their eternal loyalty and love for one another? Is there something intrinsically illicit about three people wanting to publicly declare their love for each other? Is the number ‘2’ somehow sacrosanct?

    Hypocrisy, and ideological narcissism (and the tyrannical government which follows inevitably from it), are defining characteristics of liberalism and the Left. Unfortunately, ‘conservatives’ who support gay-marriage (and more commonly, government interference in the reproductive choices of women), are cut from exactly the same cloth, and threaten our individual liberties just as surely as their counterparts across the political isle.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.edinger Chuck Edinger

    As a longtime Libertarian I regard same-sex marriage as a non-issue. But given the strong emotions on both sides of this generally uninteresting issue, if it must be decided by a governmental body, it is probably best to retain the traditional location of authority at the state level, and to make each state’s decision on the basis of a popular referendum. That is sound and fair and unfortunate from the perspective of the gay marriage lobby, since they have generally lost when the question has been put to the democratic process. But if American puplic opinion has shifted in some states, they will be able to reflect that change in the laws of those states. Those states who favor retaining marriage in the form that has been observed universally for the 5,000 years of human history and in every known civilization will also be free to follow the will of their citizens. And maybe we can move on to more substantive issues. Our nation faces the destruction of all that America has stood for since its birth as a bright city on a hill. Same-sex marriage is a distraction, along with many others, created by Our Dear Leader in order to create division in the ranks of those who seek to restore America. That must not be permitted as there is too much at stake.

  • docww

    Well said. I could care less about what other people do behind closed doors. The conservatives have turned off a lot of folks by probing into their personal lives.

    As a physician, the first thing I tell my patients is that I’m not their mother—they are free to do as they please. My job is to provide them with the best possible medical information. Their job is to decide whether or not to follow it. I inform but I never judge.

    That’s the definition of freedom. You are free to abuse yourself to your heart’s content, but when the wheel fall off, don’t expect the rest of us to pick up the pieces. By the way, that’s what we now call Obamacare!

  • http://navygentleman.com/cvn2 Red47

    I find it fascinating that the 3-5% of Americans who self-identify as homosexual are driving our cultural norms back to a more primitive structure..

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1560111594 Robert Blum

    ‘John Daly’ needs to be in a larger, broader font . . . IN MY OPINION
    Though, I was paying attention this time.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1560111594 Robert Blum

    Unlike civil unions and contractual partnerships, ‘marriage’ should be strictly within the domain of ‘the church’. . .not ‘the government’.

  • slogin

    What a disgusting cow she is.

  • DOOM161

    Those that don’t militantly support polygamous and pedophilic marriage are no less bigoted than those that don’t militantly support homosexual marriage.

  • Ed

    Not wanting to change the definition of “Marriage” is not a “Conservative thing”. It has NOTHING to do with politics. I know all sorts of people that DONT want to change the definition. That being said, anyone that DOES make it a “Political thing” is being…well…political. Bottom line? Marriage is MARRIAGE, Civil Union is a fine alternative, to help get “Gays” the “rights” that they CLAIM to not be getting….Unless…. you have ulterior motives…and are just…. making it political.

    PS- I think both Bernie (and Bill) and Meghan (and John) ….are A-holes.

  • Phillip C. Smith

    Valid scientific studies affirm that, on average,
    the best environment for children to be raised in is that of a male and female
    married to and in love with each other and with their children. Children raised
    in other situations (single parents, same-gender couples, etc.) can receive
    much good support but these are, on average, not as effective as traditional
    marriage situations. The studies I became acquainted with as a student at
    Stanford University (Ph.D. in Sociology) affirm the above.

    Using the term, “marriage equality” does,
    of course extend to all other emotional-sexual unions, such as those that can
    be found in polygyny, polyandry, child unions, pedophile-friendly unions and
    even in some incestuous unions. If equality is the standard, the 14th amendment
    mandates that all be treated equally in terms of the type of unions they want
    to have classified as marriage. What are the consequences to society if all
    these emotional relationships are made legal

    As to the question “what harm is there in
    having also same-gender unions?” it is asserted here that society needs to
    set the ideal standard and then encourage as many as will to follow it. Other
    alternatives are likely to detract from the successful pursuit of this ideal.
    Those heterosexuals who do not have children and/or marry later and don’t have
    children can still reinforce the ideal standard.

    We do have, though, the responsibility to love all
    people, homosexual or heterosexual. I would much rather have a child raised in
    a loving same-gender situation than in a dysfunctional, abusive heterosexual
    relationship.

    I hope this issue can be discussed in a kindly
    fashion with every attempt being made to rely on valid scientific studies.

  • pupster40

    Opinions are like backsides, everyone has one. Why not leave this subject there and at the level of freedoms.

  • http://twitter.com/GoldbergAllen Allen Goldberg

    She is not much different than her dopey, maverick father.

  • alanwillingham

    If the definition of “Marriage” is to be changed so that it no longer is one male and one female of legal age, will the legal age restriction also be abolished? Will discrimination still exist against a male with two or more other spouses, or a female with two or more spouses? Will a 12 year old male be prevented from marrying his 35 year old gym teacher? Will only spinsters be allowed to marry their loving Labrador Retrievers? Will this truly abolish all restraint, limitations, and obstacles so that any group of individuals may choose to “Marry” anything and everything they wish? If not, WHY?

    • John Daly

      I’m guessing all of those same questions were asked decades ago when our country was close to legalizing interracial marriage, don’t you think? Just like then, the answer to all of them would be no.

      • alanwillingham

        You should be aware that minorities are not limited to all one gender. In the interracial marriages to which you refer, there was a male and a female not two of the same gender. I suspect you actually know this and are attempting to distract the less educated with an appeal to an unsupported bit of hyperbole.

        • John Daly

          Thanks for the explaining the difference between interracial marriage and gay marriage. I really appreciate you clearing things up there.

          • alanwillingham

            You keep using that specious straw-man argument and of course you look foolish equating Interracial with Homosexual. They really aren’t interchangeable, and the only people you will confuse with that feeble effort are the low information, emotionally driven individuals who fail to comprehend the inconsistencies being foist upon them by those who seek to persuade through deceit and manipulation rather than rational arguments.

          • John Daly

            How is it a straw man argument? Why aren’t the two interchangeable in the context of what the government recognizes as a legal marriage?

            Again, my column isn’t about a religious or spiritual understanding of what marriage is. It’s about the government’s definition.

            My argument is completely rational… Far more rational than just repeatedly insisting that you shouldn’t compare to comparable circumstances because “they’re just not the same, and that’s that”.

      • alanwillingham

        …”Just like then, the answer to all of them would be no….” What convinces you that those who seek to redefine “Marriage” in order to accommodate some of those now restricted and not legally allowed to “marry” will so definitely be prejudiced against all others who seek the same legal relief as themselves?

        • John Daly

          What convinces you that with interracial marriage not opening a flood gate for all of the silly stuff you put forth, gay marriage will?

      • http://www.facebook.com/darren.perkins.942 Darren Perkins

        Interracial marriage did not seek to redefine marriage but simply who could get married. Arguments put forth in opposition to this may have been fallacious but that does not invalidate those same arguments for a fundamentally different issue. Not taking a side here but just pointing this fact out.

  • LarryInIowa

    I guess to McCain a vote in favor of Sanford is a vote to not just condone but to celebrate adultery as McCain and Daly condone and celebrate homosexuality with their position on gay marriage. Perhaps Daly should look at his Bible a little closer. We are supposed to hate the sin but love the sinner. Sanford can be forgiven of his adultery, we can even choose to ignore it, but it is still a sin. Not to be celebrated as Daly and McCain celebrate the sin of sodomy. I can easily vote for an adulterer or a homosexual for public office if their politics are right. I refuse, however, to endorse their adultery or homosexual acts as Daly and McCain do.

    • dave davies

      You have it right, Larry. It would be different if Sanford proudly and defiantly remained in his adulterous relationship while seeking office, wanting us to accept it as normal.

      • Joan

        Actually, his marriage was destroyed, he is currently engaged to the woman he had the affair with. I am sure this is very painful for his 4 sons who ranged in age from 10 to 16 years-old at the time this all started.

        His minor sons trusted and depended on Mark Sanford
        to be there for them as a full-time father as they were growing up. He was obviously more interested in benefiting himself versus doing what was in his children’s best interest. Even if “his politics are right” do his constituent really expect any better behavior out of Sanford for themselves?

        • dave davies

          He deserves what he gets. I hope his wife gets all she wants from divorce court. I guess the point I was making pertains to my beliefs of what makes up traditional marriage. Most people understand that for thousands of years marriage is a union of a man and woman. They aren’t always a successful union, as our subject shows, but no one should deny the obvious physical compatibility, that produces children. To call the mating of two men or two women natural is a perversion that was never meant to be. Of course, not all agree, but they have to reject what has been truth since the beginning of recorded history.

    • John Daly

      I ‘celebrate’ homosexuality? I ‘celebrate’ sodomy? lol.

      I can assure you that as I writing this column, I was not wearing a party hat, performing a keg stand, or doing the worm.

      • LarryInIowa

        Very cute. Are there any other biblical sins that you want to put a government stamp of approval upon? Perhaps an award for filial ingratitude? How about a tax credit for taking the Lord’s name in vain? Maybe we should encourage covetousness in public schools?

        • John Daly

          A government stamp of approval? How about the government just butting out?

          Infidelity is a sin. Does that mean the government is giving it a ‘stamp of approval’ because it’s not illegal?

          Using God’s name in vain is a sin. Should the government prevent people from doing it? And because they don’t, is that a ‘stamp of approval’.

          Why does government need to enforce God’s will? Why can’t people decide what they believe in?

  • floridahank

    Meghan comments on ” sanctity of marriage…. and sanctity…and…. infidelity.”

    These are terms that she probably doesn’t believe in reality, and only as a concept for argument. Since she’s isn’t married, she has no idea of what goes into a real-life marriage and she’s been hanging around too many weirdo-thinkers who probably don’t know much outside of their academic brainwashing.

  • Joan

    Well, if the definition of marriage is changed from an institution created to protect and raise the children created in a heterosexual union to an institution based on love Meghan is correct.

    Sanford abandond his wife and kids because he now loves another. If you do not believe the definition of marriage is based solely on love, which is why a lot of people are against gay marriage, then she is right.

    • dave davies

      Traditional marriage is based on vows given at the creation of the marriage. To love, honor, in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, and rejecting all others, till death do you part, so help me God. Those vows don’t get followed too often, and it involves much more than love. Sanford should have remembered his vows when he allowed himself to love another. As the vows get pushed aside in our morally bankrupt society, marriage finds itself on shaky ground, and the underpinnings of our society suffer.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jim.staudt.7 Jim Staudt

    Well, if marriage is no longer defined as being only between a man and a woman, then where do I get a license to marry my Corvette?

    • John Daly

      You might dry the DMV.

  • alanwillingham

    The writer’s logic is flawed. Although he specifically points out that government endorsed civil unions are not necessarily tied to any religious beliefs or ideology, he then nonetheless attempts to argue the word “Marriage” should now be used by government for civil unions in which same gender individuals are involved. I still can’t see why it is argued that a government endorsed civil union should intentionally want to cross the line of Church and State by insisting on a religious term that existed thousands of years before the United States was founded.

    • John Daly

      Not so fast, cowboy.

      I couldn’t care less what the state refers to it as. To me, it’s irrelevant.

      • alanwillingham

        The intrusion of religion in formulating government policy, and the intrusion of government attempting to regulate or change religious ideological beliefs, terms, and practices were considered anathema to the Founding fathers who specifically created the First Amendment to prevent that which you state is of no consequence to you.

        • John Daly

          State marriage isn’t God’s will. It’s merely a legal contract. Are you honestly trying to make the case that the government’s definition of marriage is the same as God’s? It’s not.

          • alanwillingham

            Do you ever even attempt to debate rationally rather than straining so hard to twist and misrepresent what is actually the subject? You just stated you “couldn’t care less what the state refers to it as”. Then you immediately show that you actually DO care by attempting argue that the state should intrude even further into religion by usurping the word marriage as those in government continue to attack and destroy religious tenets and beliefs in favor of an all encompassing government.

          • John Daly

            My argument is completely rational. Yours is more impulsive than it is substantive.

            “Then you immediately show that you actually DO care by attempting argue that the state should intrude even further into religion by usurping the word marriage as those in government continue to attack and destroy
            religious tenets and beliefs in favor of an all encompassing government.”

            I did no such thing. I think you’re reading what you want to read, instead of what I’m actually writing. I don’t care what term the government uses. I’m pointing out that what the government currently defines as marriage is not God’s definition of marriage. I absolutely don’t want government intruding on religion. Changing the government’s definition of ‘legal’ marriage has nothing to do with religion

          • alanwillingham

            Again?… “I don’t care what term the government uses”…. Yet you continue to argue just the opposite….. ” I’m pointing out that what the government currently defines as marriage is not God’s definition of marriage”….

            So you obviously care enough to still attempt to twist government’s desire to usurp and redefine the term “Marriage” so that it can then be used for something altogether different. If you didn’t care, “Civil Unions” which is immediately recognizable as legal rather than religious term, and is clearly Secular, would be appropriate….

            “Changing the government’s definition of ‘legal’ marriage has nothing to do with religion”…. You are still arguing backwards. It isn’t ‘government’s definition’ of marriage that is being attacked.

            Government is the aggressor and initiating the attack as it seeks to wrest away a term traditionally associated with religion and has been understood for thousands of years defining the union of male and female.

            When two of the same gender petition government to take an existing religious term and apply it to what is not a male and female union, it is clear the goal is to seek the cover of state sponsored propaganda to weaken, dissipate, and co-opt the religious term they find has been an obstacle to their ideological quest to replace religious institutions with government.

          • John Daly

            I would be totally fine if the term “civil unions” was used. Heck, the government could call it a “banana” for all I care. Is this really what your beef is about? The word itself, rather than the meaning behind it?

            The government’s definition of marriage is not being “attacked”. People are mere proposing that it be changed. You act as if they’re trying to defy the U.S. Constitution. They’re not.

            Religion should have nothing to do with what the government’s definition of “marriage” is. Thus, petitioning that the government’s definition be changed is not any kind of attack on religion.

  • http://twitter.com/eRtwngr eRightWinger

    Meagan McCain? Really? The emails from this website are staring to get embarrassingly close to spam. The saddest thing abut the Sanford election isn’t just that conservatives supported him but that they couldn’t find anyone better. But nobody was going to seriously vote for his opponent. So Sanford was the lesser of two evils by a pinch. But in this district there wasn’t even one decent, principled Republican better than this lout?

    • John Daly

      You realize that Meghan McCain didn’t write this column, right?

  • KCGranny

    Could someone explain to me how Ms.McCain became a voice we pay attention to? Why even quote her? I submit that the Arizona sun has had an impact on brain!

    • John Daly

      I quoted her, as I explained in the column, because I believe her faulty view is representative of MANY people in this country. It was a good segue into the point I’m making.

    • LarryInIowa

      The more I hear of Ms. McCain the more I see the basis for blonde jokes.

  • http://www.facebook.com/VinnyBickler Vincent R Bickler

    No, Bernie, you are NOT crazy. Once again, you present reasonable, sensible ideas for all to consider. Meghan McCain is often presenting terrible arguments, and she is not a conservative in any context.

    • justlisa

      John Daly is the author.

  • supie

    When did “Goldberg” become a Christian ?

  • joespook

    Who?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1775150241 Bonnie Thomas Usrey

    John Daley and Meghan McCain’s “logical” reasons why Conservatives and even Christians, in Daly’s case, should support Gay marriage are about the same. They boil down to “It doesn’t effect ME, or MY marriage so I support it because that’s the popular “hip” thing to do” They dismiss thousands of years of the historical meaning of Marriage,as a sacrament or a sacrad union between a man and a woman, because it doesn’t effect THEM and they think Gay marriage is cool.-general attitude of someone who thinks the World started the day they were born, and anything before that is “ancient history” old-fashioned and should be disregarded. Daly uses a lot of words, and what he thinks is a rational intellectual argument, but he’s just saying the same dumb stuff as Meghan whose father should tell her to keep her Public policy opinions to herself, or he’s taking away the Trust fund and inheritance and she might have to work for a living instead of being a dumb debutante.

    • barry

      I would agree except for the “thousands of years of historical meaning
      as a sacred union” comment. Actually, the purpose of marriage in every culture throughout history has been to legitimate children by acknowledging responsibility of the biological parents. To
      counteract thousands of years of human culture by allowing any family structure to raise children could well have adverse social consequences, particularly when 85-90% of us are straight. So let’s distinguish between civil unions and marriage. Civil unions would provide rights that any American ought to have for sharing a
      life and committing to another. “Marriage” on the other hand ought to presume the possibility of raising children, and on that score I prefer the current cultural standard that several state referenda have approved – a child ought to have the right to be raised
      by a mother and a father. Yes, there can be exceptions decided on the basis of what would be in the best interest of the child in the particular
      circumstance. It comes down to children’s rights and the future of our culture and not the whims of adults who want their own children whatever the consequences.

  • kayakbob

    the statement, ““Any Republican that voted for Mark Sanford in South Carolina but is against gay marriage is an unbelievable hypocrite.” is simply the perspective of a one dimensional, if not one-issue, person temporarily forgetting that not everyone else is a one issue, one dimensional voter.

    I suspect one issue, one dimensional voters are not the majority – of either party. Or perhaps I just hope it is the case.

  • http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com/ JLM

    .
    Miss McCain’s very limited and demonstrably suspect intellectual gifts would not be on display absent her last name.

    Go quietly into that dark night but just go away.

    JLM
    .

    • Johnconrad

      Are you ready for Chelsea Clinton’s political career to begin?

      • Joan

        Prophetic, but depressing

  • Johnconrad

    Looks like young McCain is as feeble when it comes to critical thinking as her father. Sigh

  • GarryOwen6

    Well written and thoughtful opinion piece. I agree with most all of its themes except for one point.

    The nuanced characterization that liberals are the only ones capable of being one issue voters. — “I have a few liberal friends who even told me prior to the 2012 election that they couldn’t vote for Mitt Romney because he opposed gay marriage. That position makes no sense to me, and it never has.”

    In my line of work I am surrounded by a vast majority of social conservatives who took the exact opposite position. They “could not ” vote for a candidate who favored it or simply would not take a stance either way. I think there is a sizable portion of the American electorate (on both ends of the spectrum) who have their own list of “screening criteria” or “litmus test issues” by which they judge candidates. Their political frustration (for those on the extremist fringes) comes into play when they cannot get a candidate to match their view on–pick one or all– abortion, gun control, gay marriage, war, peace, civil rights, progressive government, small government, Benghazi…

    • John Daly

      Thanks for your response. I didn’t mean to suggest that only liberals can approach an issue that way. I know it cuts both ways.

      Personally, however, I’ve never heard a social conservative tell me that they base their vote on the gay marriage issue alone. Maybe a combination of that and other issues, better never exclusively that issue.

      I agree about the litmus tests. I know people in 2008 who chose not to vote simply because they didn’t think McCain was conservative enough. We’re now paying the price for that viewpoint.

  • cmacrider

    John: Well reasoned argument as usual. As a Canadian conservative, I haven’t the foggiest notion why I would be expecting the state to interfere with someone else’s sexual orientation or their private relationshiops. As you suggest there is a fundamental difference between a “state marriage” and a Christian marriage. I suggest state “marriages” should be simply classified as civil unions and Church marriages classified as marriages …. after all in Christianity “marriage” is a sacrament I believe.

    • John Daly

      I think someone came up with that idea in response to one of Bernie’s columns a while back. Makes sense to me.

      • GarryOwen6

        Perhaps the word “marriage” should be taken off of all government issued documents and replaced with “union” or “partnership.” If a couple wants to be “married” go whatever place your faith tradition dictates and make it happen. Leave the rest of us and the government out of it.

    • floridahank

      I agree. If you look at 4,000 yrs+ of world history, marriage was always accepted as between man and woman — even during corrupt years when controlled by evil kings and queens. When was there ever any proclamation that homosexual marriage was considered acceptable, even during Nero’s homosexual activity, marriage of man and woman was never disputed.
      Look at every great ancient country’s marriage behavior and it was always viewed as between man and woman, even in the case of incestual marriage when their loyalty was to carry on the name of the king — always involved a man with a woman.
      When did homosexual marrige even gain acceptance in society — it was always viewed as a strange relationship, but never a profound action.

  • http://www.e-marketingpartner.com/ Bob

    John, well thought out article as always. I do have a couple questions. You mention that federal office will have little impact on the gay marriage issue, but is that true? Are gay couples afforded spousal benefits for Social Security or other federal programs? Are Federal workers given spousal benefits for their gay partners? Are Federal estate tax regulations the same for gay couples as straight ones?

    This is my major personal argument against gay marriage. We have a system of tax law designed around a family unit of the 40s and 50s. Dad goes to work, Mom stays home, takes care of the house and raises the kids. Spouses receive Social Security benefits based on the idea that women weren’t able to work and pay into Social Security so might have to draw on their husband’s some day. Since most of the population is married, everyone seems to think this is still a good way to do things.

    According to the 2010 Census, only 25% of gay households are even raising children, compared to 42% of heterosexual couples. Does a 1/4 of the gay households warrant spousal benefits for the whole group? The financial motivation is the primary push behind gay marriage. You can legally do anything you want right now as a gay couple, wear rings, change your name, co-habitate, have a big ceremony, swear a vow before friends and family, whatever. Even issues like hospital visitation have been addressed.

    I think the government should get out of the business of marriage completely. Stop paying people to have children and be stay at home moms. Gay marriage is the opposite of this.

    • John Daly

      Thanks Bob.

      That’s a good question on the spousal benefits. I’m not sure how it works right now with states that recognize gay marriage.

      You make a good point about the government getting out of the marriage business. I think there’s a legitimate case for that.

  • I Hate Fascists

    Good to see you are not completely made out of stone. But is it genuine? Only after the November election (and after your party labeled itself the Stupid Party) have you become an outspoken advocate of gay rights. Prior to that your only writings on the subject were limited to defending Chick Fil A and to castigate Obama’s own epiphany as politically motivated

    • John Daly

      Please. I never write anything that I don’t genuinely believe.

      I’ve supported gay marriage for years (probably over a decade), and have mentioned it in multiple columns here, including ones written long before the last election.

      I’m not sure I’d call myself an “outspoken advocate”. There are plenty of issues that I’m far more passionate about.

      • I Hate Fascists

        Well if you have and you know I always check I can’t find any other than those 2

      • dave davies

        I would like a try at all of this. I believe in an intelligent creator. As such, it would not be intelligent to accept relationships between the same gender, since the equipment doesn’t match up, and procreation doesn’t happen. The creator has certain rights on how the creation works. If you say you don’t believe in an intelligent creator, you must wonder how it works so well, being done by accident and all. Politics being thrown in the mix, we all must determine what flaws we can accept in a candidate. They all have flaws, and the flaws and strengths show up in how they vote. For me, gay marriage and abortion rights are a deal breaker.

  • OU812

    Crime alert: the OP is an unbelievable Republican hypocrite who doesn’t understand the depth of his hypocrisy. “Her implication was that people who oppose gay marriage (on the grounds that it defies the sanctity of marriage) are hypocrites for voting for someone who cheated on his wife (because there is no clearer violation of that sanctity than infidelity).” Wrong, bigot. The South Cackalakans who voted for Sanford, but against gay marriage, are hypocrites because they’ve manifested, real, tangible discrimination against the gays in their red-neck state. At the same time they give a pass to a machismo, Christian thug, who has shown contradictory “family values” behavior, and got away with it. For this reason, the gays and their supporters boldly blaze forward in a federal court of law because Republican hypocrites have no license to tell anyone how to live.

    We shall demand our rights in court, and you foolish, Christian-Republican hypocrites, can’t do anything about it.

    • John Daly

      Not sure I understood a word of that rant, Sunshine, but thanks for weighing in.

      • OU812

        You are the hypocrite that Ms. McCaine says you are, and you’re not too bright to understand why, hillbilly.

        • John Daly

          lol. What planet did I just beam onto?

    • I Hate Fascists

      Hope you are right bro. I’m with you 100%. But unfortunately there’s no shortage of bigots on the SCOTUS either.

    • LarryInIowa

      i guess you are saying the anyone who doesn’t give you everything you want is a fascist bigot. How very liberal of you.

  • I Hate Fascists

    You mean sanctimony of marriage right?

    • John Daly

      Nope.

      • I Hate Fascists

        Well at least I taught you something

  • GlenFS

    John, this is the most cogent, well put together argument yet for not opposing gay marriage as a legal matter. I was on the fence and you convinced me. My personal opinion about someone else’s relationship is not important. Marriage is in trouble, but from our whole culture and not from gays who aren’t exactly its cornerstone anyhow. Up to now, I’ve just said the state should not have a role in people’s personal relationships. I like your take better.

    • John Daly

      Glen, I couldn’t ask for a more meaningful compliment than that. I’m glad you found my column influential. Thank you so much for letting me know.

    • OU812

      Looking forward to the SCOTUS ruling against proposition 8 and DOMA. You can’t do anything about it, bigot.

      • John Daly

        Glen writes that he’s NOT opposed to gay marriage and he gets called a bigot for being opposed to gay marriage. Only on the Internet.

        • OU812

          Anyone who supports tangible discrimination is a bigot. Glen is a bigot, and so are you. I can’t wait for the SCOTUS to destroy your precious marriage bans, bigot.

          • John Daly

            Just out of curiosity, do you ever order food at McDonalds, then get mad at the people who work there for giving you what you ordered?

          • dave davies

            I am having a hard time seeing you in a long term relationship.

          • John Daly

            lol

  • John Daly

    lol. I knew it would be lost on you.

    By the way, if you feel like taking a break from calling everyone bigots for a few seconds, you might want to take a couple of minutes to actually read beyond the first three paragraphs of my column and learn that I’m FOR gay marriage (not against it), I don’t live in South Carolina thus have never voted for Mark Sanford, and am not even the type of person that McCain was talking about.

    OR… you can just continue arguing with yourself and coming across like an ass.

    I think I already know which direction you’ll go, but I’m done wasting time on you either way.

  • Paul Courtney

    Powerless bigots are the problem? Well, as you say, it’s over, you’ve won here. Hey, now you’ll have time to fight powerFUL bigots, got your travel itinerary to Iran set yet?

  • Stimpy

    @OU812: just what is it that you just put in your mouth and ate?