gay marriage

By the pricking of my thumbs...

Indeed.  At Heritage:

The New York legislature’s vote last Friday night to redefine the family and recognize homosexual marriage will have a number of impacts within and well beyond the Empire State. The vote does not signal an end to the now two-decade fight over the meaning of marriage. A new phase—not an endgame—has begun. Here are five key impacts:

1. The vote continues an adverse trend for marriage law in New York...

2. The policy change emanates from a legislature and is reversible by the legislature...

3. Religious liberty is suffering a death of a thousand cuts, and the collision of religious/ moral conscience and nondiscrimination laws still looms...

4. Redefinition of the family is the clear goal of same-sex marriage activists... (one of our earlier posts on this topic is here--tvm)

5. Marriage is a mega-issue and merits a full-scale national debate in 2012...

Hmmmm.  Around here, we're told we're not supposed to discuss social issues.  Won't it seem a bit odd that we're the only ones silent on topics that everyone else in the country is debating passionately?  But I digress.

There are conservatives, like Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, who take a different tack.  Morrissey argues that

social conservatives should have taken my advice from years ago and fought to get government out of the marriage-definition business altogether....In New York and other states, people want government to treat domestic partnerships in a gender-neutral manner.  Social conservatives should fight to get government out of the marriage-definition business in order to keep sacramental definitions where they belong — where they have always belonged.

Maybe.  But other conservatives maintain that this is just the thin edge of the wedge.  Think the Netherlands (from 2005):

The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals....in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.

[....] Asked by journalists to tell the secret of their peculiar relationship, Victor explained that there is no jealousy between them. “But this is because Mirjam and Bianca are bisexual. I think that with two heterosexual women it would be more difficult.” Victor stressed, however, that he is “a one hundred per cent heterosexual” and that a fourth person will not be allowed into the “marriage.” They want to take their marriage obligations seriously: “to be honest and open with each other and not philander.”

What could go wrong?

Or more recently (December 2010) in an editorial on polygamy (an ongoing issue in Canada) in the Canadian magazine Macleans:

As for the broader harms that many fear would arise if polygamy were not a crime: again, just because we do not prohibit something does not mean we have to tolerate it. We can still discourage it. Specifically, we can discriminate against it, withholding the social and legal status we confer on monogamous marriage. We don’t need to ban polygamy. We can just refuse to recognize it.

Of course!  How could I have been such a ninny when the solution is so obvious?  Just refuse to recognize it.

...something wicked this way comes.

"Almost" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades

Jumping into the fray here on two fronts...

From Stacy McCain:

When Stacy refers to independent voters here, he's talking "small i" independent, not the Independence Party, which is almost an irrelevancy anyway, at least in this area (Independence Party members, feel free to comment on that assertion):

Republicans who go squishy on social issues do so under the mistaken belief that this somehow helps the GOP reach independent “swing” voters. But that kind of soft-headed thinking is based on a complete misunderstanding of who independent voters actually are.

Independents are not moderates, but rather are prototypical “low-information” voters, and aren’t really much interested in social issues one way or the other.

You know what independent voters truly loathe? Gutless backstabbing unprincipled two-faced flip-floppers.

That last bit is certainly my reading of voters around here who regard themselves as small-i independents.

Read the whole thing.

And as for polls and the media (emphasis mine):

For years, the mainstream media has done their level best to make the redefinition of marriage seem inevitable. As if in concert, local, regional, and national outlets have published the results of poll after poll under headlines like “Majority of Americans Now Supports Same-Sex ‘Marriage,’” all in an attempt to silence opposition...

....The good news for the media is they may have almost succeeded in persuading a sufficient number of salt-of-the-earth Americans to give up the fight.

[....]  we cannot allow ourselves to fall prey to the machinations of the mainstream media, which frequently employs polls not simply to report public opinion, but to frame it...

And not just the mainstream media but political party powers-that-be would do well to remember the old adage about where "almost" counts.

RTR.

In contrast, however, to McCain's conclusion that

The four GOP state senators in New York who voted for this bill have destroyed all hope that the Republican Party can ever make a real comeback in that state.

I posit this:

Just sayin'.

Subscribe to gay marriage