The blessings of gay conservatives

Yesterday I mentioned John Hawkin’s post explaining why he is sponsoring HomoCon.  I thought a nice companion piece would be Nick Gillespie’s post reprinting the HomoCon platform, a platform I think that all conservatives will find agreeable.

Remember (as if you, my dear readers, ever forget):  Unlike the statists/regressives/so-called liberals, we are not the party of identity politics.  We are the party of small government and big security.  We welcome those who agree with us on those issues, regardless of their race, color, creed, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, or country of national origin.  We also acknowledge that there will inevitably be disagreements on the ideological periphery.  We know, though, that under America’s two party system, we cannot win federal elections if we allow our attention to wander too far from the core issues that currently threaten to destroy the country entirely.

My sense is that, aside from the belief many hold that homosexual activity is sinful, I believe that gay marriage is the single most divisive political issue right now between conservative gays (at least, those conservative gays who support gay marriage) and other conservatives (at least, those other conservatives who don’t support gay marriage).  It shouldn’t be.

As I’ve said before, I am not a fan of gay marriage, since I think marriage is, at its core, a religious issue.    The smartest way to resolve it would be for the state to get out of the marriage business entirely and, instead, limit itself to allowing those “domestic partnerships” that it deems are in the state’s interest.

Right now, we probably all agree that heterosexual partnerships fall in that “state interest” category.  A slight majority of Americans would add homosexual partnerships to that category, something that should be worked at through societal consensus, not judicial fiat.  And if the specter of “dogs and cats, living together” comes up, we’ll deal with that too.  And then let those various partners find the churches that will unite them before their God(s).  End of story.

That’s my view, for what it’s worth.  But my question for those opposed to gay conservatives who support conservatism on the most important political issue of the day is this:  Can you afford to get into a divisive fight over what is, temporarily at least, a less significant issue than saving our entire country from frighteningly potential internal economic collapse and external terrorist and military attack?

Be Sociable, Share!
  • BrianE

    Marriage, at it’s core, is the glue that holds societies together. Just look at the black community to see the effects of the dissolution of the family.
     
    This has been discussed many times here, but at their core, the activists pushing gay marriage are pushing the destruction of our judeo-christian traditions, of which marriage is one of the pillars. Gay marriage is just a stop on the way, IMO.
     
    Whatever the compact between two gay people is, it is not marriage. It could be a union, a monoduo, a monomono, but it is not a marriage. Only a man and a woman can create a marriage.
     
    Yes homosexuality is a sin, as I understand the scriptures, but this isn’t about homosexuality. This is a battle to preserve one of the pillars of human societies. All you anthropologists out there, please point me to successful cultures that thrived (or survived) destroying the family unit.
     
    I have no problem working with gays to advance a conservative agenda. If they choose to make this part of the fight, we part company. (But that shouldn’t diminish the need to still support a trim, focused government).
     
    Part of the problem with your premise is that abandoning this principal in favor of other pressing problems won’t lead to the destruction of our culture is so many other ways. That’s why this issue cannot be ignored in favor of others.