banner photo:

"Each individual should allow reason to guide his conduct, or like an animal, he will need to be led by a leash."
Diogenes of Sinope

Banner photo
Thousand Flowers tapestry (15th Century) - Beaune, France (detail)

Friday, June 20, 2008

A conservative argues for same-sex marriage

An op-ed in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution by Terry J. Garlock argues "Conservatives wrong to fight gay marriage". An excerpt:

I've given this a lot of thought, and I think my prior stand against same-sex marriage was based on my personal thoughts about homosexuality rather than individual liberty. Those are two separate issues. My uneasiness may never go away, no matter how many names the enlightened ones call me, but the freedom of same-sex couples does not depend on my endorsement of their lifestyle.

As a conservative, I believe the state should stay out of the business of judging which unrelated adults may and may not make a marriage commitment to each other, that when a same-sex couple chooses to marry, we conservatives should value their liberty far more than any personal or religious disagreement with homosexuality. Conservatives should welcome the contribution of same-sex marriage to the virtues of commitment and family stability we hold so dear.

(ht: Citizen Crain)


Anonymous said...

The Courts only ruled on "Same-Gender" status to be included in the Definition of Married.

That's why it's a bit rich for the pro-gay mobs to deny 3 men fvrom being defined as Married , or one Lesbian and two gay men.

Bigots and homophobes are a real source of humour since they hide behind equality for 2 same-gender Person's to be married but then mock 3 persons wanting to get married.

Eric said...

Huh? No one's talking about plural marriage here. I'm not sure what your point is in this context.

Anonymous said...


Don't tell me you fell for the Media tripe that it was a Gay-issue?

Read the Court rulings, it did not declare that 2 persons of the same gender must prove they are non-Hetrosexuals to get a marriage license , so if two men can marry ....why not 3 men or two men and one female.

Just wait until some emotional basket case has a sick relative with no Benefits plan and they want to marry them or Live together to file a benefit Claim with CUPE or OPSUE as a Spouse or common law couple.

Eric said...

Well, is it OK when heterosexual basket cases do the same thing? The problem then is fraud, not marriage - whether it's gay or straight. Should we ban marriage (gay OR straight) just because a few crooks might take advantage of it?

As for the polygamy argument, I've addressed that here in case you're interested.

Anonymous said...

Buddy gets it - he wants the state to stay out of marriage - and that's exactly as it should be.

The Church has been marrying couples for centuries, and the Catholic Church still doesn't give a crap if you go for a legal union or not, they define marriage themselves. All religions do this to an extent.

The state should get out of the marriage business altogether and treat everyone equally under and before the law. Pensions and other benefits can be assigned by whoever earns them, or they can be sued for them, whatever. And if they want to divvy up their benefits between five wives and five husbands, ten percent a piece, so be it.