Always And Forever, Amen

By Rod Dreher • May 14, 2012, 9:46 PM

In 32 states the issue of gay marriage has come before the electorate and 32 times that electorate chose to protect marriage and define it as the union of one man and one woman. So it peeves me to no end when I read one of the cadre of supposedly conservative pundits advocating that we give up on protecting marriage, suggesting it is a battle we cannot possibly win.

“Supposedly”? This is one of the stupidest and laziest habits of the right-of-center commentariat. If you disagree with what a particular conservative believes, then you aren’t just wrong, you aren’t even a conservative. Heretic hunting is no substitute for thinking.

More Archbold:

Shortly after President Obama’s statement of the obvious, Rasmussen showed Romney surging in the polls (at one point with a 7 point lead.) A new poll by Gallup shows “twice as many Americans say President Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage will make them less likely to vote for him than say it will make them more likely.”

Yeah. Now is the time to give up. They have us on the ropes.

Well, Obama’s declaration made me more sympathetic to Romney, only because if when the US Supreme Court constitutionalizes same-sex marriage, I want there to be a greater chance that it will do so with the broadest possible protections for religious freedom. Obama’s coming out in favor of SSM wasn’t exactly a surprise, but the fact that he’s owning up to it makes me realize that if re-elected, he can nominate an openly pro-SSM justice to the next vacancies on the court. There are never any guarantees with these things, but as squishy as Romney is on this stuff, we know exactly where Obama stands.

As I’ve said, I hope Maggie Gallagher is right about the winnability of this issue and I, a pessimist, am wrong. Over and over, I look at the direction of the culture, and the tremendous advances SSM has made in the past 20 years, and I don’t see this turning around. Look at the polls. Do you really think young people, who favor SSM by dramatic numbers, are going to change their minds as they age, at least in numbers high enough to make a difference? I don’t see it.

I am not surprised either that trads keep winning these statewide ballot contests on SSM. But our voters skew a lot older, which means they are, in general, more likely to vote. Eventually, they are going to die. Archbold’s argument is like saying that because there is a solid constituency among voters today for the Social Security status quo, it will always be there. That’s just not so.

Same-sex marriage, as I keep saying, makes sense given what many people, including younger Republican-oriented voters, already believe. A friend of mine in his mid-30s is more by-the-books Republican than I am on fiscal and defense issues, but he is completely sold on same-sex marriage, and doesn’t understand why anybody would oppose it, absent rank bigotry. He’s a smart guy. Suburban professional, churchgoing, married with kids. I think he’s the face of the Republican future. I don’t think he worries overmuch about whether or not we’re going to have same-sex marriage, but insofar as he sees the issues as a proxy for inflexible social conservatism within the GOP, it moves his thinking and his voting. My guess he’ll almost always vote GOP in the general election, but in primary contests, the candidate who is more “progressive” on same-sex marriage will almost always get his vote, because if the candidate is right on the SSM issue, he’s probably going to be more culturally in step with my friend’s way of seeing the world.

I’ve tried to use reasoned arguments to change my friend’s mind, and we can’t get past first base on this thing. The problem is we don’t share the same view of what marriage is, nor do we share the same view of society (he’s libertarian, I’m traditionalist). He’s a good guy, and I think he sees me the same way, but if I started from his premises, I would support SSM too. I know it’s anecdotal, but his views more in line with what I’ve observed among suburban Republicans than my own views.

NPR did a piece the other day showing that suburbanites are more socially liberal than rural voters, and that his gay marriage stance could help Obama with them this fall. The report also points out, though, that support for SSM is not overwhelming among suburbanites, and besides, like most every other group, this election is really about jobs and the economy. Those who are most motivated to vote on social issues this fall are rural social conservatives, who are more likely to pull the lever for Romney. Obama’s SSM move has probably made social conservatives get over their dislike of Romney.

Anyway, I would like the Archbolds of the right to explain why they think that the electorate will always be so socially conservative on gay marriage. Why do they believe voters 35 and under are going to get more conservative as they age, in significant enough numbers to make a political difference? Tell me. Show me.

UPDATE: A reader writes:

What I find interesting is that Archbold calls you “supposedly conservative” not for appearing to support SSM, but for merely thinking we may not win this fight.

This litmus test reminds me of the nationalism that often passes for patriotism among mainstream American conservatives. Many on the right today tie their love for their country to their country being great – militarily, economically, etc.; whereas a traditionalist loves his country not because it is mighty, but because it is his. One wonders how many contemporary conservatives would have been patriots during the Great Depression or Vietnam War.

Likewise in social issues, it now appears that being conservative requires not just holding the right views, but believing they are succeeding, all evidence to the contrary be damned. Isn’t this the kind of thinking that gave us Iraq and the financial crisis? Since when is it conservative to oppose reality?

36 Responses to Always And Forever, Amen

Abigail Cain says:

May 15, 2012 at 12:02 am

As a twenty five year old who is against SSM, and the only person my age I know (excluding my Orthodox peers) who is, I think it is unlikely that the attitude will change. However, I don’t think that means we have to throw in the towel.
I went to a very liberal high school and college and being against SSM was tantamount to saying blacks have to ride at the back of the bus. I for many years bought into this, before becoming Orthodox and realizing that marriage is more than just saying two people love each other forever…. that is until they get a divorce.
I think there needs to be a real discussion about what marriage really is. It seems to me that this has gotten lost somewhere. If people don’t try and argue against SSM then how can the 35 and under voters know it’s not a good thing for themselves or society. I think most people in that age group agree with it because they don’t want to seem like a bigot. If more people would give logical arguments against it maybe more people would listen. I’ve heard to many people try and argue the point by talking about how SSM is a sin, but you are talking to a largely non-religious group.
There are other arguments that seem like they would work better. Such as the fact that as far as I know no civilization in the history of the human race has ever acknowledged same sex marriages in any legal capacity.
Not to mention that one of the main arguments I always hear is about making medical decisions or who gets things when one same sex partner dies. They act as if there are no solutions to these problems, but it’s fairly easy to write a living will and will that would solve these problems.
Not to mention that personally I’m a bit scared of what will happen if it is legalized at the federal level, as I have homosexual friends who have explicitly mentioned, and one in California who has tried to organize, a movement to remove tax exempt status from Church’s that do not allow SSM. I think this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Perhaps it is not a fight that can be won but as someone whose mind was changed on the subject, it seems that it can’t hurt to try. If those who disagree with SSM stay quite then it makes it harder for someone on the fence realize they aren’t a bigot for disagreeing with others on this subject.
Gretchen53 says:

May 15, 2012 at 12:03 am

Rod, I find your SSM articles very frustrating. You seem to feel that you’ve explained your opposition, but “2000 years of tradition” or “the Bible says so” aren’t really arguments, they’re assertions. There are many traditions in the Bible, such as slavery, that are no longer acceptable. There are many conditions in the Bible that we don’t treat the same way any longer because science has explained things, like leprosy and birth defects, that weren’t understood in biblical times and were attributed to sin or God’s punishment. I really wish you could explain your feelings beyond your distaste for SSM.
When my children were small, we had a lesbian neighbor, a very nice woman, whose friends also seemed to be gay women. We went on vacation with my husband’s sister and her children. Our daughter and two of theirs hung together, wearing pink ruffles and ponytails. Their youngest daughter insisted on wearing swim trunks and having her hair cut short, and stuck with my son. Her mom and grandma were upset by her tomboy ways, and tried their hardest to change her, to no avail. On the way home, my husband said “I think she’s going to grow up to be a friend of Gail’s (the neighbor). I said “don’t be mean.” He said “I’m not being mean. That’s what I think”. She was about 4 at the time.
She had a hard time growing up, but now in her late 20′s she’s found her place and fallen in love with a woman. She’s doing well in school, has a plan for a career, and finally seems comfortable in her own skin after years of misery, failure and struggle. She came out to my daughters recently, and they said “we’ve known that for years” . My niece said “I wish you’d have told me. It would have saved me a lot of confusion”.
This is who she is. This is who she was always going to turn out to be, despite her mighty struggles against it. Her mother didn’t speak to her for months after she found out. Her dad, while confused, is trying. Her married siblings don’t understand why she can’t be like them and pretty much reject her. Nobody would choose this, but now that she’s accepted it she’s doing much better.
In contrast, my daughters have a male friend who has had sex with men, but is trying desperately not to be gay, and is dating their friend. The friend won’t hear anything against it, hopes to marry him, have children, and be a stay-at-home mom. She just can’t understand why he’s so rarely physically affectionate.
Who is going to do more damage, to other people and to marriage itself? My niece, who is honest about herself and has found someone who loves her as herself? Or the friend, who is hiding who he is from himself and his girlfriend, and wlll hurt her terribly if it comes out after they’re married and have a couple of kids.
Would you have my niece, who has, remember, been this way since age 4, live her life alone, without family, love, or support, rather than having her marry a partner she is really good with her, because some people find it icky? I don’t think the Jesus is my Bible would say that. God made her this way, and I don’t think a loving God would make people this way if it meant that they had to live their lives isolated and alone.
BrettDR says:

May 15, 2012 at 12:19 am

“Same-sex marriage, as I keep saying…”
And keep saying, and keep saying, and keep saying. I know this topic got a boost because of Obama’s announcement last week, but I think you’re running on fumes here. Isn’t there something, ANYTHING else for you to talk about? What have you made for dinner lately that was good?
Peter Hoh says:

May 15, 2012 at 12:58 am

32 times that electorate chose to protect marriage and define it as the union of one man and one woman

Does this figure include Arizona’s 2006 Proposition 107?
human says:

May 15, 2012 at 2:37 am

Why do you think people’s minds won’t change as they grow older and have more to conserve? Why would the current generation of younger people be so different than any other in all of human existence?
JonF311 says:

May 15, 2012 at 5:39 am

He can nominate whoever he likes to the Supreme Court, but he has to get them through the Senate, which may be GOP-controlled next year, or may have a razor thin Democratic majority– or be tied.
Marcus Lindroos says:

May 15, 2012 at 4:31 am

FYI, The Economist has an interesting article about how young evangelicals are becoming more liberal on social issues.

http://www.economist.com/node/21554201
carlolancellotti says:

May 15, 2012 at 5:21 am

Sometimes, just sometimes, people become more capable of critical thinking as they age. And less prone to being emotionally manipulated.

Also, you should ask your libertarian friend why does he think that the state should be in the position of deciding who is married and who is not, as opposed to just recognizing marriages when they serve some demonstrable social good.
peter nelson says:

May 15, 2012 at 9:42 am

It’s really simple. As people with children age they come to desire, above all else, grandchildren.

People aging = want grandchildren. SSM = No grandchildren. Ergo, people aging = no SSM.
scotch_meg says:

May 15, 2012 at 9:54 am

I am old enough to remember the days before divorce became universally acceptable and common, even in the liberal Northeast. Now we recognize that the theory of the time – that divorce would be good for both adults and children – was horribly wrong. We can’t, as a society, figure out how to get the horse back in the barn, largely because we as individuals are not willing to sacrifice our immediate desires for longterm societal benefit. I think that if SSM does not become universal – if DOMA holds and state constitutional amendments last – we will see the consequences for society and can make a more sensible decision. Young people nowadays see that divorce hurts, but they don’t know how to avoid it. Maybe we can do better with SSM.
Susan says:

May 15, 2012 at 10:25 am

I am hoping that with good information, our youth will change their minds about SSM like they did about abortion. Perhaps more stories like the one I saw thi morning on Ricochet will help people think what SSM means:
I beg you to take a look at what’s going on in Massachusetts and ask yourself honestly whether you think this would be a good development nationwide. Here’s one item among many: [emphasis in the original]In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!
Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is â€œlegalâ€, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!Click here for the story with embedded links:http://ricochet.com/main-feed/For-Those-Who-Think-SSM-Is-A-Distraction-Or-A-Minor-Issue
Mitchell says:

May 15, 2012 at 11:01 am

Proposition 107 is interesting, because it and the later proposition 102 (defining marriage to be between a man and a woman) passed *after* 107 was defeated. I.e. the tide went the opposite way that Rod Dreher says it should go. That is probably why pro-homosexual ‘marriage’ rarely mention it.

However, there is a complicating factor that 102 also banned civil unions, while 107 I don’t think did.
Sands77 says:

May 15, 2012 at 11:20 am

“Who is going to do more damage, to other people and to marriage itself? My niece, who is honest about herself and has found someone who loves her as herself? Or the friend, who is hiding who he is from himself and his girlfriend, and wlll hurt her terribly if it comes out after they’re married and have a couple of kids.”
Great point. And It’s so frustrating that Christians never consider that. The real tragedy comes when someone hides it long enough to get married and have kids only to realize that they just just can’t pretend any longer. Gayness is not something that can be prayed away or taken care of at weekly Gay Anonymous meetings.
Sands77 says:

May 15, 2012 at 11:32 am

I agree. This has become a one issue blog over the last week. I know this is a subject near and dear to your heart, but I think we are all at the point where we’re just repeating ourselves here.
JohnE_o says:

May 15, 2012 at 11:38 am

Addressing here the question of what your fellow conservative writers have to say about you, Rod, and not the general question of SSM…

Both liberals and conservatives have their orthodoxies – if you step outside that orthodoxy, the tribe will call you out on it.

More tribalism at work.
thomas tucker says:

May 15, 2012 at 11:41 am

Gretchen- two things. First, what you see on the surface, and what you see now, may not be what you see years later and in depth. In other words, appearances can be deceiving. I ahve read more than one story written by a woman with same-sex attraction who later discovered that following that lifestyle really did not make them happy, even though they thought it did at one time. Second, “God made me this way” just doesn’t work as an excuse for doing things. Anyone with any sexual proclivity can say that, and it doesn’t make it right.
thomas tucker says:

May 15, 2012 at 11:46 am

I do think you have put your finger on something, which is that the divide among conservatives on this issue splits between those who are libertarian and those who are traditional, Burkean conservatives. I recently read a new biography of William F. Buckley, and I had never realized how conservatives came to consist of differing camps (traditionalists, libertarians, and neo-conservatives.) Depending on which camp you find yourself in, you will tend to have a different view of this subject from those in the other camps.
Gretchen53 says:

May 15, 2012 at 12:04 pm

Abigail, you say we need a discussion of what marriage should be, but then drop the subject. I think marriage should be the union of two people who love each other, who want to stay with and support each other in good times and in bad, become part of each other’s family and form a family of their own. Nothing there that requires opposite sexes.
The reason that hospital visitation is such a big issue is that it has often been denied. Inheritance is an issue because spouses can leave each other property without taxation, while unmarried people can’t, even with a will. Annie Lebowitz was in terrible financial straights after her partner died, because they weren’t married, and she had to sell rights to many of her photographs to pay taxes to keep property they had accumulated together. You say there are “other ways” to accomplish these goals, but don’t say what they are. There is a way already in place: marriage.
You also don’t say what someone like my niece should do in your world. She’s gay, and as hard as she tried not to be, it’s not something that can be changed. So should she live her life alone, as a misfit? Or marry a man, and give him a lifetime of wondering why their sex life is so lacking? Or marry a woman who loves her?
When I was young, I didn’t know any gay people. It was a shameful thing that people didn’t let be known about themselves, so everyone else went around thinking that all gay people are like the drag queens in San Francisco. But now that it’s less shameful, more and more people find out that their brother, their friend, their neighbor is gay, and that this is a pretty nice person despite the knowledge. There’s not much move to change the laws for drag queens far away, but when it’s someone you know and love, it’s a lot harder so say “who cares if they’re happy. Tradition is tradition”.
By the way, the understanding of marriage has changed greatly over the last 2,000 years. It used to be an exchange of property, an alliance of families. Love and the feelings of the couple had nothing to do with it. In fact, the idea of young people choosing their own mates was enormously controversial in many places, and seen to be a change in what marriage means, that had never been done before. There was tremendous resistance to the idea, and in fact parents still arrange marriages is many countries.
Gretchen53 says:

May 15, 2012 at 12:06 pm

What are the chances that, if a ballot initiative in Alabama or Mississippi proposed denying black people the vote, that it would pass? I think it would have a chance. That’s why the rights of the minority shouldn’t be put up to a popular vote of the majority.
capecodder2010 says:

May 15, 2012 at 12:19 pm

Rod, a fuller comment was posted on another of your posts, but for the readers here: this is part of the problem. It isn’t just being anti-SSM, or civil unions, and the like. It is about being anti-gay, and using that viewpoint, and the power of a state representative to derail someones job prospects for the *sole* reason that he is gay.

That is why we gays have to keep fighting on all fronts and issues, because there are bigots out there that need to be fought.
Peter Hoh says:

May 15, 2012 at 11:20 am

Yes, 102 was written more narrowly than 107. The defeated amendment also banned civil unions.

I don’t think the defeat of 107 and the subsequent passage of 102 necessarily says anything about the swing of public opinion. My guess is that 102 would have passed in 2006.

The claim that these amendments have passed every time they’ve been put on the ballot is not an honest statement.
JohnE_o says:

May 15, 2012 at 11:23 am

Long past that point, actually.
thomas tucker says:

May 15, 2012 at 11:30 am

Well, of course, I would never say that someone like that should get married and have kids. Neither would I say it about people with other sexual dysfunctions. But I also wouldn’t tell that person to start embracing and living out their dysfunction. Honestly, I think way too many people get married in the first place, and the wolrd would be a better place if many more people remained single. Marriage is not for everyone, but societal expectations are such that most everyone feels they need to get married. We have lost the idea of singleness as a vocation as we have embraced the idea that no one can be happy without sex.
Peter Hoh says:

May 15, 2012 at 11:31 am

Perhaps because the current crop of old people are changing their minds on this issue.
thomas tucker says:

May 15, 2012 at 12:01 pm

Neither does it mean that every minority should have the right to do whatever they please.
JonF311 says:

May 15, 2012 at 2:05 pm

Prop 107 was overly broad, and vague. For once the voters listened to that complaint, as they have failed to do in too many other states, including NC just recently. Prop 102 banned just SSM, but did not attempt to overreach and ban all legal recognition of partnerships.
JonF311 says:

May 15, 2012 at 12:14 pm

Please cite an example of people growing more conservative on non-economic issues (or I suppose foreign policy issues, once they no longer have to worry about being sent to war themselves). I can think of only one case where the nation reversed direction: the repeal of Prohibition, which arguably never had true public support in the first place (it was rammed through during the public hysteria over WWI). Starting with religious tolerance, and continuing through the abolition (in the US) of monarchy and aristocracy, full (white male) suffrage, the abolition of slavery, child and animal abuse laws, child labor laws, women’s suffrage, desegregation, divorce, birth control and open cohabitation– there’s simply no example of people changing their minds in the general case on any social issue as they grew older, even if they became more circumspect in their personal life.
And sometimes the reverse even happens: people grow more liberal on these issues as they grow older and more experienced. My step-mother confessed that she found interracial marriage appalling in her teen years (early 50s, in an all-white northern Michigan town), but later on and after getting to know real life black people, she had no problem with it.
JonF311 says:

May 15, 2012 at 12:15 pm

Um, what’s the likelihood of gay people producing grandchildren simply because their unions are not legally recognized? There’s some likelihood of course, but I fail to see that it’s any greater or less with SSM or without.
JonF311 says:

May 15, 2012 at 12:20 pm

Sometimes you can’t avoid divorce– some divorces are necessary, just as sometimes you have to stop aggressive treatment of a terminal illness. No divorce is never a good thing, but it is necessary evil.
I had an aunt who divorced in the late 1930s– she was married to a criminal and abusive husband. When her family discovered this (her younger sister witnessed the creep beating her– when she was pregnant) they insisted that she divorce the SOB– and my grandparents were born when Queen Victoria still reigned. They pointed out to her that if she stayed with the guy, her brothers (including my father) would likely end up in prison for murdering him.
So she did as they deamnded, and later married a much nicer husband, and became a devout church goer with him.
The ex-husband died in prison– for assault and rape.
Christopher_Sc says:

May 15, 2012 at 2:32 pm

Rod,

I could be wrong — and could be psychoanalyzing a bit here — but it seems to me that the problem you are having with Archbold and Gallagher is that you are speaking two different languages. You are speaking mainly as a cultural commentator, and your view, based on informed trends that you see, is that young people today lack the moral language to ever understand why SSM could possibly be wrong and so are not likely to change their minds about it as they age. They are speaking mainly as advocates in a culture war, and object to what you are saying, not on the basis that the data is wrong or goes the other way, but because saying things like you did is not strategically useful. I suspect that in some ways you are both right — that the trends you are seeing are real and that admitting publicly the direction these things are likely to go does not help the case for traditional marriage.

Still, I tend to side with you, though for less pessimistic reasons. Sure, I’d like a SSM marriage regime that protects religious freedom, but based on the ways that SSM supporters have acted in the past, I believe such a regime to be likely impossible. Gallagher is right: if the only reason to disagree with SSM marriage is irrational bigotry, then those who oppose it must be irrational bigots and, therefore, bad.

What Gallagher and Archbold should be doing, though, is thanking you for pointing out data about what kinds of arguments might work with young people. And that recognizes just how foundational those arguments have to be to be winning. I do disagree with what I take to be your overly pessimistic view regarding the likelihood of someone changing their foundational views about things; it is difficult, but possible. At heart, people are made up of the same foundational needs and evidences, and arguments based on those can work to change foundational thinking.

And human, I think Rod has made clear, exceedingly well, why this crop of young people is unlikely to change their views about SSM, even if they follow the trend of becoming more conservative with age: their basic moral framework can’t even conceive of how SSM is even in dispute. Opposing SSM would not be moving right along a spectrum, but jumping to an entirely different conversation.
pak152 says:

May 15, 2012 at 1:49 pm

”The reason that hospital visitation is such a big issue is that it has
often been denied. Inheritance is an issue because spouses can leave
each other property without taxation, while unmarried people can’t, even
with a will.”

there are other ways to leave property to someone besides through a will. one should always contact an attorney. one can jointly own property. you can have bank accounts that are known joint tenancy accounts or Pay on death

as for hospital visitation that can be problematic even for heterosexuals. the best advice is to grant someone limited power of attorney with regards to your health. this can then grant the individual full access to discuss matters with the health care professionals

you can set up trusts etc. sure it is complicated but even heterosexuals go through this process. most people don’t have enough of an estate to be affected by the death taxes

”Annie Lebowitz was in terrible financial straights after
her partner died, because they weren’t married, and she had to sell
rights to many of her photographs to pay taxes to keep property they had
accumulated together.”

Ms. Lebowitz’s problems were much more complicated then you put. even before the death of her partner she had mortgaged her rights.
Tyro says:

May 15, 2012 at 1:53 pm

I think it is logical to assume that people find marriage preferable to single hood and sex preferable to no sex. The difference is that in the past we were comfortable with declaring some people superior to others and claiming that some people had inferiority as their lot in life.

Unless you’re willing to turn marriage and/or romantic love into a morally neutral or even an undesirable thing (or possibly increase the costs of them), people, given the chance, are going to pursue those paths.
Sands77 says:

May 15, 2012 at 4:48 pm

“Sometimes, just sometimes, people become more capable of critical thinking as they age. And less prone to being emotionally manipulated.”

After reading your post regarding Galileo, I’ve got to ask, what’s your excuse for a lack of critical thinking?

“… recognizing marriages when they serve some demonstrable social good.”

The problem is you base a “demonstrable social good” on the dogma of your church. And, to be quite frank, the vast majority of Americans do not give a rat’s ass about that dogma. Never has and never will. See, we have our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and we couldn’t care less what some guy in central Italy thinks about our liberty.

We critically thinking Americans realize that we live in a country with over 300 million people and on a planet with 7 billion people, penicillin and immunizations. Now we can throw away our modern medications and let nature takes its course when we make sweet love, or we can keep the meds and the birth control. Because a world without birth control *and* with modern meds creates a population that just ain’t sustainable.

Also, we Americans like — no, we love — birth control. We like to have sex for pleasure and plan for children when we’re ready. And when we’re through having children we — gasp! — get sterilized, have romantic evenings and keep on having sex just for the fun of it.
SiarlysJenkins says:

May 15, 2012 at 8:13 pm

President Obama making a statement on gay marriage makes me less likely to vote for him than if he had not made the statement. But of course I’m still going to vote for him. On the whole, he’s been doing a great job. The Quantum Theory of Mitt Romney is more than sufficient reason not to vote for a stuffed shirt whose core principle is “I really admire the thought of me being president,” and whose experience in business consisted of buying other people’s work at fire sale prices, giving it a quick shine, and selling it off for more than it would be worth a year or two later.
ThyTwoThou says:

May 15, 2012 at 11:38 pm

Wait, so… people with gay children will want grandchildren more as they age… meaning they’ll oppose SSM… so their own gay children cannot get married…. which will make it MORE likely that they will produce children? Because, what, in their adulthood (remember, as the parents age their kids age too) they’ll now be shamed straight?

Not a well-conceived plan.

If anything, SSM guarantees more grandchildren, because it empowers and validates more of the family-oriented stable gay couples who will adopt children in the first place, children who in turn will go on to have or adopt children of their own.

And for the Nth time, the intellectually lazy chestnut that “people get more conservative when they age” is nothing but a daydream on this topic. Someone born in 1980, with gay friends and classmates and co-workers and public figures, will always have a different perception of gay people than someone born in 1940. This life experience will not be suddenly erased the minute they have to make their first car payments.
Monterey22 says:

May 16, 2012 at 12:36 am

The Washington State legislature passed gay marriage just a few months ago. In a move allowed by our state’s constitution, signatures are now being collected to get a referendum of that law on this fall’s general election ballot,–said signatures being collected by those who want voters to nix the newly-passed gay marriage law. Will be interesting to see how our state votes on it. Many think our left-leaning electorate will vote to sustain this law. I’m hoping otherwise, and that we become the 33rd state to say that marriage should not be redefined.