Sowing Seeds on the Right

by on

From National Journal, Same-Sex Marriage Supporters Looking for Conservative Support:

The Respect for Marriage Act, the bill that would repeal 1996’s DOMA, has little if any chance of passing this Congress, but advocates are hoping to form a wave of support that will eventually lead to the end of DOMA and return the decision on marriage to states. …
The salons are also meant to show conservatives that support gay marriage they are not alone. Getting them to support the issue publicly, though, is another story. “Reaching out to the right, it’s a different animal,” said Nicole Neily, the executive director of the fiscally conservative Independent Women’s Forum and one of the leaders of the third-party salon.

This will be a protracted cultural and political struggle, but it’s good to see that efforts are being made by supporters of marriage equality within the conservative movement. As I’ve often stated, the argument to the right has to be made in the language of the right (individual liberty vs. over-reaching government), and it’s a language that the big-government left just doesn’t speak.

More. Agreeing to talk: A look at an ongoing dialogue between gay marriage advocate Jonathan Rauch and opponent David Blakenhorn.

6 Comments for “Sowing Seeds on the Right”

  1. posted by Houndentenor on

    Correction: the repeal of DOMA has little chance of passing the Republican-controlled House. It doesn’t even have a chance of coming up for a vote.

    That said, the talking points for how to talk to the right about this issue has been basically written by Ted Olson. Have at it!

  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    This will be a protracted cultural and political struggle, but it’s good to see that efforts are being made by supporters of marriage equality within the conservative movement.

    Dead one.

    As I’ve often stated, the argument to the right has to be made in the language of the right …

    The conservative case for marriage equality has been made from three different conservative perspectives:

    (1) the arguments made Jon Rauch that marriage equality increases societal stability, reduces pressures on government to provide social services, and upholds marriage as the “gold standard” in our culture;

    (2) the arguments made by the Cato Institute and others that laws infringing upon marriage equality infringe upon individual liberty; and

    (3) the constitutional arguments made by Ted Olson.

    None of these arguments are new. All have articulated with great skill and force.

    It is not so much that “the argument to the right has to be made in the language of the right” as that the arguments have to start being heard by the right, particularly the hard-core opponents from the religious right who claim the mantle of “conservative”.

  3. posted by Jorge on

    It is not so much that “the argument to the right has to be made in the language of the right” as that the arguments have to start being heard by the right, particularly the hard-core opponents from the religious right who claim the mantle of “conservative”.

    I’m not familiar with Ted Olsen’s perspective but that sounds like it’s probably right. I suppose more drilling and exposure to all three arguments couldn’t hurt. It’s obvious from the article that they have been heard in the highest circles of power. But more conversations on the topic further down could help.

    I don’t see points 2 and 3 matching well with the religious right.

  4. posted by David in Houston on

    Regarding the “ongoing dialogue between Jonathan Rauch and opponent David Blakenhorn”:

    Sorry, there is no common ground here. Because there is no rational basis to deny gay couples the secular civil right of marriage. Virtually all arguments against marriage equality have to do with chosen religious beliefs. Yet the fact that non-religious straight couples are legally permitted to marry is never acknowledged. This intentional disconnect with reality illustrates the disingenuousness of the anti-gay side. It also points out that this has more to do with animus directed at gay people, than it does marriage. So, unless the anti-gay side intends to ban non-religious straight couples from getting married, any religious-based argument should be pointless. Unfortunately, religious arguments are given a great deal of weight in our country. Regardless of the obvious and blatant hypocrisy involved.

    There is a similar disconnect when the anti-gay side talks about children having a right to a (biological) mommy and daddy. Yet the fact that 20 million children are being raised in single-parent families is never acknowledged. Don’t those children have a right to a mother and father? Wouldn’t it be best for society if those children were placed in two-parent homes? As ludicrous as that sounds, it shows the hypocrisy taking place. Why are these arbitrary rules applied to gay couples when they don’t apply to straight ones? Of course the biggest disconnect is the fact that procreation has never been a legal requirement for straight couples in order to get married. (I know quite a few married straight couples that don’t have children, and never intend to.) So again, why are people like David Blankenhorn using children as a means to disenfranchise gay citizens? If anti-gay people (and organizations such as NOM) genuinely believed that marriage was solely an institution for raising children, they would also support banning the elderly, infertile couples, and those not wanting children from getting married. Since they don’t, one can conclude that animus directed at gay people is the real motivation for their agenda. So, no, there isn’t common ground when your adversary has been exposed as a bigot that uses religion and children as weapons to further their agenda.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      They use “what about the children?” as an argument because they know it’s the only one they have that works.

Comments are closed.