Occasional IGF Culture Watch contributor Dale Carpenter shared the thought that “This will be the formulation that will finally allow religious traditionalists to publicly support same-sex marriage,” referring to how Republican Rep. David Jolly (Fla.) announced his support marriage equality:
“As a matter of my Christian faith, I believe in traditional marriage. But as a matter of Constitutional principle I believe in a form of limited government that protects personal liberty. To me, that means that the sanctity of one’s marriage should be defined by their faith and by their church, not by their state. Accordingly, I believe it is fully appropriate for a state to recognize both traditional marriage as well as same-sex marriage.”
Jolly becomes the eighth current Republican member of Congress to come out in support of gay marriage, joining Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.), and Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.).
Said Rep. Dent in announcing his support, “As a Republican, I value equality, personal freedom and a more limited role for government in our lives. I believe this philosophy should apply to the issue of marriage as well.”
30 Comments for “Coming Onboard”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
First, I am glad that Representative Jolly has endorsed marriage equality. Eight down now, and 271 to go. The crack in the wall of Republican resistance to “equal means equal” is going to widen, little by slowly, until the wall comes down.
Second, while I hope that Dale Carpenter is right in his analysis, I personally do not think that the “limited government” argument is going gain much traction with religious conservatives. “Limited government” is a libertarian argument. Religious conservatives do not care about or want “limited government” when it comes to social issues. Religious conservatives want the government to use the law to ban abortion. Religious conservatives want the government to use the law to enforce “morality”. Religious conservatives want the government use the law to block marriage equality. For religious conservatives to accept marriage equality on the basis of “limited government”, religious conservatives will have to abandon the core of their philosophy of government.
Time will tell, I suppose, but any movement at all toward “equal means equal” in the Republican Party is a movement I embrace.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
I agree with you, Tom.
First – I’m glad to see Representative Jolly supporting equality. Contrary to Stephen’s assertions, I would love to see every Republican on board with equality. As that is not going to happen, I am really pleased to see any Republican stand up and ‘endorse equality’.
But I also agree with Tom that “limited government” is probably not going to make that much of a dent in the religious/social conservative club.
The only ‘limited government’ the religious right favors is that government which limits others’ rights while supporting their own.
In fact, most religious/social conservatives would advocate for government intrusion into people’s lives – as long as that intrusion was to enforce the religious right’s version of morality.
This is a ‘morality’ issue for the religious conservatives – not an ideological one. As we’ve seen with abortion – and the Wisconsin AG just compared marriage equality to abortion in its defense of the ‘same-sex marriage ban’ – any discussion of personal autonomy and space falls on deaf ears re: these matters.
‘Limited government’ would, for these religious/social conservatives, be that government which does not constrain the majority from enacting any law(s) they choose.
‘Limited government’ is not about limiting the reach of the State into an individual’s life. Rather, ‘limited government’ is that government which doesn’t limit the majority from doing whatever they want to do.
I have some friends who call themselves ‘libertarian’ – and their support for marriage equality, for choice, etc… is built around the ‘limited government’ mantra. But these folks aren’t the same as the religious conservatives.
posted by Houndentenor on
I’ll lower the bar. I’d be happy if most of the GOP would speak out against Michelle Bachmann’s outrageous and libelous statements against gay people. I don’t expect such a thing to happen. Marriage? Given that the religious right has worked so hard to promote anti-gay laws in Africa, I think it’s a pipe dream to even move them to being neutral on gay issues. But it would be nice if they would just call out people for outrageous lies against gays.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think it’s a pipe dream to even move them to being neutral on gay issues. But it would be nice if [the religious right] would just call out people for outrageous lies against gays.
Huh? It is the religious right that is marketing the outrageous lies, and has been for 30+ years. “Gays are pedophiles” is a standard accusation, and Michelle Bachmann’s remarks were mainstream among that crowd. We had an example on IGF just last week.
posted by Don on
I agree, but I think this is more about the reins of the Republican Party. Will the libertarian philosophy win out? Hopefully. But it will likely mean social conservatives drop out of the coalition. They have been pretty clear that they tolerate the financial arguments generally but see serving money as the wrong way to go morally.
I believe this is precisely why Jolly’s arguments are so hard to swallow for soc cons. Okay, so what’s left of what we want? Nothing. So why are we in this again? No reason. (at least none that I can see)
Getting them fired up about freedom of religion protections will carry some weight, but I’m guessing not that much.
posted by Jimmy on
I’m glad Jolly, as a Christian, adheres to constitutional principle. There exists within this Republican coalition a slew of Christian Dominionists that care little for the US Constitution, working to advance Christian sharia, here and abroad.
I’m glad I’m not in Dixie…Hooray Hooray.
posted by Houndentenor on
I’m so sick of the term “traditional marriage”. Which tradition and from what era? Arranged marriages? One man and as many women as he could afford to purchase from their fathers? Women with no ability to obtain credit on their own so they were stuck in abusive marriages? Which of the many traditions do they mean? It’s just a focus-group way of expressing bigotry.
That said, I have no craps to give about what he believes. It’s none of my business so long as he’s not interfering in my rights. And now the total number of pro-gay Republicans in the Senate hits 4 with 3 in the House. That’s progress. It’s slow, but it was slow getting the Democrats on board too. We were just earlier. There will be more eventually. I’m glad to see Stephen cheering for the pro-gay conservatives rather than just blasting liberals.
posted by Jorge on
I’m so sick of the term “traditional marriage”.
Before legal recognition of gay marriages became realistic, I used “traditional marriage” to mean what I expected I would do in the absence of legal and religious recognition. I wanted the gay community to use “traditional marriage” to mean gay marriages. To adopt the language and conventions of marriage as best as they could fit, socially, outside of religion and legal recognition.
When that didn’t happen, the politicians brought the conventions and form of marriage into their floor speeches and I think the judges even brought them into their decisions. Instead of a private morality challenging and working within society’s fundamental assumptions, the morality went public and legal to do the same thing.
I miss the days when I had to think harder about it.
posted by Lori Heine on
These people showed how great their commitment to “limited government” was during eight long years of the most oppressive, abusive and corrupt administration in U.S. history.
None of them uttered a peep in protest then. Not one.
They are only prattling about “limited government” now because a Democrat’s in the White House. As soon as another Republican is in there, their newfound love for limited government will be gone.
On 2012, Republican friends (and these were gay Republicans) were already outraged at me for saying that people (like gays) who voted for Romney needed to let him know they were part of his base, too. I couldn’t even question the Emperor–and he hadn’t even been elected Emperor yet.
posted by Houndentenor on
Usually that kind of thing has to wait until after the election. It’s the trap of “access” and it affects the media as well as political operatives, lobbyists, etc. If you don’t cowtow to those in power, you lose access. But what good is that access if you can’t say anything other than platitudes once you are in the room with those in power. It’s why the inside the beltway groups never get anything done unless they have a lot of money (and by a lot I mean billions) to spread around (read: bribe) our elected officials.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As a side note to the politics:
(1) The 7th Circuit turned down the Indiana AG’s and Wisconsin AG’s request for a hearing by the full court. The matter will be heard by the three-judge panel on August 26, rescheduled from August 13 in light of the delay.
(2) The Miam-Dade case in Florida (IGF commenter Don is one of the plaintiffs) was decided today in favor of marriage equality. This is the second state court decision in Florida in two weeks. A federal case is also pending.
posted by Don on
The judge in our case went really, really far with her opinion. She equated “same sex marriage” with “separate but equal” in our country’s vernacular. And her comment was the former will one day be as shameful as the latter. It will simply be “marriage” soon enough.
Pretty amazing opinion if you have the time to read it. Jorge and I are doing a slew of Spanish language media as a result. That’s why I haven’t been commenting so much. Jorge’s mom has been doing it with us. She’s going full-on 80-year old Cuban grandmother on the opposition. Most of the time, they aren’t even showing up for the debates.
Let’s see if they show up for today’s installment for Univision.
posted by Jorge on
(Eighth? And the one I was thinking of got defeated two years ago.)
Second, while I hope that Dale Carpenter is right in his analysis, I personally do not think that the “limited government” argument is going gain much traction with religious conservatives.
Neither do I.
For religious conservatives to accept marriage equality on the basis of “limited government”, religious conservatives will have to abandon the core of their philosophy of government.
I agree with this too. And I think they shouldn’t.
I think the more important part of the problem is that too many religious conservatives simply can’t conceive of morality existing outside their religion.
Those who can are probably going to slowly support legal recognition gay marriage on populist grounds–“it’s good for my friends and family, it’s good for this country.” I still do not believe Barack Obama or even Hillary Clinton believe gay marriages are sacramentally equal to straight marriages. We’ll see the same thing keep spreading rightward. Most people in this country understand that are very good reasons for religious pluralism. Even people of faith believe that a strong legal tradition of not judging people by one’s religion will benefit this country’s moral foundation. What’s important–and what distinguishes gay marriage from abortion–is that it is very difficult to oppose gay marriage in good faith on any but doctrinal grounds, things that are on faith.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The term “traditional marriage” has been long used in anthropology to describe a marriage in accordance with the classical norms of a given culture, time and place.
While “traditional marriage” can describe any manner of arrangements (monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, levirite marriage and so on, depending on culture, time and place), the so-called “pro-marriage” groups are using the term “traditional marriage” (“one man, one woman”) in the anthropological sense, if the context in which the term is used is understood to be European culture of the fifty years or so.
I think that it is fascinating that the so-called “pro-marriage” groups have (1) abandoned the Christian understanding of marriage (“one man, one woman, for life”) in favor of the secular understanding of the last fifty years or so (“one man, one woman”) and tried to codify (for the most part, successfully) the most recent secular form of “traditional marriage” into state constitutions, and (2) melded secular and religious understandings of marriage together (as in President Bush’s musings about the “sanctity” of civil marriage).
By doing so, the so-called “pro-marriage” groups morphed the secular/religious understandings into an undifferentiated lump.
I can’t help but think that this diminishes the Christian understanding of marriage and the authority of Christian theology with respect to marriage over individual Christians. I suspect, in fact, that when the history of our time is written 50-100 years down the road, historians will reflect that the efforts of the so-called “pro-marriage” groups did much more to undermine the “one man, one woman, for life” Christian understanding than same-sex marriage did or could possibly have done.
As you note, correctly I think, many/most Christians are unlikely to consider same-sex marriages “sacramentally equal” to straight marriages, now or in the future. To the extent that the question is relevant at all, it is relevant only within particular Christian denominations. It is irrelevant to the civil, secular understanding of marriage, or to the religious understanding of marriage in other denominations.
What we deem important is legal equivalence, not religious or sacramental equivalence. Leaving aside the intra-denominational struggles over same-sex marriage (which is a concern of those in the denomination and no one else), it makes not a whit of difference what Christians (or adherents of any other religion) think about our marriages, so long as our marriage are recognized and treated equally under civil law.
In that quest, we are no different than millions of straight couples.
Non-Christians, for example, cannot enter into a “Christian marriage”, a “sacramental marriage” if you will, under any circumstances, but non-Christians can marry at civil law. Divorced and remarried couples are not party to a “Christian marriage”, or “sacramental marriage” if you will, within the understanding of many/most Christian denominations, but divorced men and women can remarry at civil law. Gentiles cannot be a party to a Jewish marriage, and a Jewish marriage cannot exist between a Jew and a Gentile, but Jews and Gentiles can marry at civil law.
Nobody in our society challenges either side (religious or secular) of the equation in those and other examples where civil marriage law conflicts with religious theology of marriage, and nobody much cares. That’s the way same-sex marriage should be treated.
The problem we are encountering — and much of the resistance — is that the so-called “pro-marriage” groupshave either (a) mushed religious law and secular law together into an indigestible mass where a civil law marriage between two atheists is somehow “sanctified”, which is theological nonsense, or (b) insist that civil law line up on all fours with their particular theology of marriage.
In my view, that — not “limited government” — is at the heart of the issue.
posted by Houndentenor on
Republicans talk about limited government and spending cuts until hey are in power and then they expand government and hike spending. It’s a joke to hear anyone who is a Republican say they vote that way for those reasons. Either they are ignorant or just lying.
posted by Jorge on
I will when Obama’s outta here.
posted by Jorge on
I think that it is fascinating that the so-called “pro-marriage” groups have (1) abandoned the Christian understanding of marriage (“one man, one woman, for life”) in favor of the secular understanding of the last fifty years or so (“one man, one woman”) . . . . By doing so, the so-called “pro-marriage” groups morphed the secular/religious understandings into an undifferentiated lump.
I think you have made a very astute observation.
What we deem important is legal equivalence, not religious or sacramental equivalence.
True.
As usual, I believe social equivalence is the most important thing. I have doubts as to whether civil law alone can regulate civil behavior without some willingness to acknowledge that for other people, there might be something greater.
You cite that most Christian denomenations reject remarriage after divorce. Most Christian worshippers, I would wager, accept remarriage after divorce. These are not just some random interpretations of supernatural physics–notwithstanding that in scripture Jesus came down unequivocally on one side. Both sides look at something in this life –remarrying or not remarrying–that they can perceive to be harmful to the body and soul.
Government and civil society have to give room to such possibilities. Otherwise, we really should have an obligation to impose a theocracy. And theocracies are almost always brutal.
I must disagree with your statement that calling civil marriage between two atheists “sanctified” is theological nonsense. If atheists can be treated with any tolerance at all, then that reasoning (whatever it is) will control in many different situations.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As usual, I believe social equivalence is the most important thing.
Thoughts: Social equivalence is not the same thing as religious or sacramental equivalence. Social acceptance often comes despite religious opposition and denial of sacramental status.
The example you gave of Roman Catholics accepting remarriage after divorce despite the Church’s firm and unyielding opposition to the validity of remarriage after divorce is but one example. Another example is the widespread support for marriage equality among Roman Catholics (significantly higher than among the American population as a whole).
When it comes to marriage equality, I agree that social equivalence is worth pursuing, but I do not think that it is as important as legal equivalence. Social equivalence makes life easier, but lack of social equivalence does not deny a married couple the legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage. Denial of legal equivalence does.
I experience awkward moments (on their part, not mine) when straights realize that their assumption that I am straight because I wear a wedding band are wrong. Occasionally I experience hostile reactions.
None of it affects my life in any significant way.
The laws in Wisconsin denying that my marriage exists do, on the other hand, affect my life in a significant way. Until those laws change, I do not enjoy the legal benefits or responsibilities of marriage, and I have to work around that fact, often at considerable expense (try doing some serious estate planning when the federal government recognizes a marriage and state law does not, for example).
But I don’t give a fig what Christians think about my marriage, theologically or socially.
All I ask is that they stop fighting marriage equality in civil law. I’ll worry about social equivalence and continue to ignore their theology, as I always have.
posted by Houndentenor on
As I always say whenever a bishop or cardinal comes out against gay marriage (or makes any statement about anything else): If Catholics don’t care what their leaders think, there’s really no reason the rest of us should have any craps to give what they say. We should ignore them like they do.
posted by Jorge on
Catholics dissent from our leaders rather more than we ignore them. There is a difference. Also in every population the “upstanding” citizens have some influence over the rebellious or mob element. You should pay attention to what a Catholic bishop says or thinks because it is nearly always succeeded by a tide the size of his denomenation. It is not a good idea to try to antagonize it, which you come close to doing every time you give that smart-aleck line.
posted by Doug on
I would submit that the number of Catholics using birth control is an ‘ignore’ not a ‘dissent’ of church leaders.
posted by credito pessoal on
Definitely believe that which you said. Your favorite justification seemed to be on the net the easiest thing to be aware of.
I say to you, I certainly get irked while people think about worries that they just do not know about.
You managed to hit the nail upon the top as well as defined out the whole thing without having side effect , people
could take a signal. Will probably be back to get more.
Thanks
posted by download save yu gi oh power of chaos yugi the destiny on
Hello, yup this paragraph is truly nice and I have learned
lot of things from it about blogging. thanks.
posted by Breervesiuh on
Witam, mam problem, znalazlem ciekawy zbior plikow, ale nie umiem tego pobrac, jak to pobrac?:
apk
Wczesniej nie bylo tego problemu, chodzi mi o gre na androida, ale zamiast jednej wersji jest kilka.
posted by escort radar forum on
Hello, after reading this amazing paragraph i
am also delighted to share my experience here with friends.
posted by acehackware.zendesk.com on
chromium polynicotinate dr oz
posted by mytruthhurts.com on
Crack that puppy open, fire it, and stand clear with the drool
because you take on the favorite game with fellow gamers gathered around to take in the action. For the sake of real gaming experience,
graphic cards in-built in the ASUS laptop are
of high quality and also the ATI graphic cards assist you to
watch good quality of movies. Cyberpower or ibuypower laptop
The latest game adds more variations: Instead of 4 races, players have
two additional races, each race having its distinct strategic strategy to tackle enemies.
You can copy Wii games, XBOX games plus games to your PC.
About US: Access Full Verision Downloadable Xbox 360 Games, XBox 360 Movies
and XBox 360 Custom firmware for those DVD drives.
posted by cancertreatmentaz.com on
I am truly glad to glance at this blog posts which carries plenty of
useful data, thanks for providing such data.
posted by biollovA on
treatment for diabetes type 2
posted by AimpeddyImmum on
Приветттттттттттттттттттттттт всемммммммммммммммм йоооооооооо гоууууууууууууу
аааааааааааааааааа это яяяяяяяяяяяяяяяя йохо хооооооооо