The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.
We have to stop the orgiers!
The argument which Brooks has been laying out was that gay marriage was part of the conservative value system of strengthening families and encouraging monogamy and committed units devoted to living life together and possibly raising children.
Also probably likely to gain him some votes from people who champion common sense over commonly held beliefs.
The over-simplified, constitutional cheat code when reading marriage laws is to reject adjectives describing accidents of birth, e.g. race, religion, gender/sexual orientation. Thus two people can get married regardless of their respective race, religion, gender, i.e. the equality required by constitution simply reduces it to 'a person can marry a person', no adjectives.
If gay marriage bans were unconstitutional, they would have been rejected by the US Supreme court by now. Maybe over time they will be, but I think a lot of people tend to ascribe to ascribe great things the US constitution things that aren't really in it.
« Older Canadian food chain Swiss Chalet decided to buy an... | What's it like to live in one ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt