Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » A CONSERVATIVE FOR GAY MARRIAGE

    Filed at 5:21 am under by dcobranchi

    David Brooks, writing in the NYT, has a fine essay on why conservatives should “insist” on gay marriage. He doesn’t make a libertarian argument, but a moral one. Well worth the free registration.


    Comment by
    November 22nd, 2003
    at 10:33 am

    Interesting – but in typical NYT fashion, he does not accurately represent the conservative position when he says:

    “You would think that faced with this marriage crisis, we conservatives would do everything in our power to move as many people as possible from the path of contingency to the path of fidelity. But instead, many argue that gays must be banished from matrimony because gay marriage would weaken all marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman, they say. It is women who domesticate men and make marriage work.”

    To make his point, Brooks establishes a mis-leading straw argument (above) and then attacks that to demonstrate why the conservative position is flawed.

    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    November 22nd, 2003
    at 11:44 am

    Which one is the straw man? Gay marriage would weaken “real” marriages? How ’bout this example.

    Marriage is between a man and a woman? FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT (H.J.Res. 56)
    Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman…

    Admittedly, I couldn’t google a quick example of the third but that hardly discredits the whole argument.

    Ball’s in your court.

    Comment by
    John T. kennedy
    November 24th, 2003
    at 1:15 am

    The individualist libertarian position is that marriage is not properly a matter of public policy.

    Trackback from
    random thinks
    November 23rd, 2003
    at 8:48 am

    On Gay Marriage

    With all the discussion, debate, argument, enraged spewing, and general hoo-hah going on these days about gay marriage, it is interesting to see that a self-professed conservative come out in favor of it. David Brooks, does it in the New