The Bonds of Common Ground
Ten areas of agreement among conservatives on marriage.

By Dale Carpenter
In National Review
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/carpenter200510250830.asp
The contending sides in the gay-marriage controversy often seem to talk past one another. They start from such radically different premises that it is hard to speak of genuine "debate" at all. One side says the issue is a matter of basic human rights; the other says it is about preserving a traditional form that is the basis for all successful human societies. On this issue, Left and Right differ dramatically on law, history, culture, social science, and philosophy.
...
In the interest of advancing the debate a bit, let's see if we can establish some common ground among conservatives on the subject of gay marriage.

There are ten premises in this debate that most conservatives, opponents and supporters of gay marriage alike, probably share:

(1) Marriage benefits society, and so anything that harms marriage harms all of us, whether married or not.

(2) Marriage directly benefits the individuals married.

(3) It is on average better for children to be raised by two married parents than to be raised by single parents or by unwed cohabiting partners.

(4) Because of the benefits identified in Premises 1-3 above, marriage should be encouraged by public policy and specifically should retain its privileged position in the law.

(5) It is socially preferable for gay persons to be in committed relationships than to be promiscuous.

(6) If any significant change to an important social institution like marriage is undertaken at all it should occur slowly and incrementally, state-by-state, rather than in one fell swoop (as by court-ordered, nationwide gay marriage), so that we can assess the impact of the change and adjust the direction of reform or completely halt the reform.

(7) Proposals for change in policy about an important social institution like marriage must take account of the social effects of the change, as observed or as reasonably predicted, not simply the "rights" and interests of those advocating the change.

(8) Proponents of change in an important social institution like marriage bear the burden of persuasion.

(9) Marriage should remain reserved for two adult persons not closely related by blood.

(10) Whatever public policy is adopted on the subject of gay marriage, churches and religious authorities must remain free to refuse to recognize such marriages if they wish to do so.

...
posted by maggie at 10:06 AM VOTE

3 Comments:

At 10/25/2005 1:58 PM,  John Howard said...

We also agree it's Tuesday.

And I'm not sure about the desiring gay persons to be in committed relationships, I think we want them to be able to leave, and we do not want to be complicit in forcing them to remain married to a person of the same-sex, unable to exercise their basic civil right to marry a person of the otehr sex.

 

At 10/25/2005 2:55 PM,  Marty said...

Heh, good luck!

(5) doesn't belong in this list, as it is not about marriage at all.

(9) also sticks out like a sore thumb, because the reasons behind them (the number two, blood kinship) are irrelevant to a same-sex (non-procreative) combination.

And what about #11:

Children need, deserve, and have God given right to both a Mother and a Father.

 

At 10/25/2005 8:27 PM,  Anonymous said...

#3 is also doubtful. He said "two parents", meaning to equate two moms or two dads with both a mom and a dad together.

What he should have said: "It is on average better for children to be raised by both moms and dads together in marriage than to be raised by single parents or by unwed cohabiting moms and dads.

#5 is irrelevant to marriage and may not even be correct. Socially preferrable for society at-large?

#6 is incorrect if he means to replace or conflate marriage with an alternative to marriage. The government is not authorized to change the social institution's core. Also, incremental changes via state court fiat is unacceptable because it will lead to federalization one way or another.

#9 is like the binary aspect of marriage and doesn't apply without the integration of the sexes. So it should read: "no man and woman too closely related...."

#10 should include not just the church organizations, but also the church members and their associations.

His list would look conservative only to someone already favoring replacement of marriage with the close adult relationship model.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home