Mitt Romney did not lose the presidency last night because he was too “moderate” or because he was “severely conservative.” He did not lose because hurricane Sandy stopped his momentum or because he coasted to the finish line or because he did not press harder on questions about Benghazi. Romney lost because the Democratic Party enjoyed a six-point advantage in party identification last night, nearly as wide a gap between the parties as its seven-point advantage in 2008. Whether this is the emerging Democratic majority that John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira predicted eight years ago, or whether it is merely an ad hoc coalition in support of Barack Obama’s unique candidacy, is a question that only time (and another election or two) can answer.
What is clear is that the Republican Party has painted itself into a demographic corner. Hispanics have turned decisively against it, and the young have too. On Fox News last night, the Democratic pollster and consultant Pat Caddell said the Republicans’ “branding problem is reminiscent of the Whigs.” Exactly so. If the party does not adapt to the shifting demographics of the American electorate, it will become a permanent minority, if not extinct.
The party—and the conservative movement for which it serves as the electoral arm—must be reformed. But where to begin? I am only a poor literary critic, not a political pundit, but I have some ideas. The Republicans are the party of married churchgoers at a time when marriage and churchgoing are in decline. Hence (at least in part) its declining share of the vote total. It can’t suddenly cease to be the party of married churchgoers without betraying itself and its core constituency. Marriage and churches are among the “mediating institutions” that conservatism most warmly affirms, because they stand between the individual and the encroachments of the state. To defend them is to defend freedom. (Calling the GOP the party of married churchgoers is just another way of calling it the party of freedom). Besides, to change course at this stage of history, to abandon the party’s core, is hardly guaranteed to arrest the decline.
If the Republicans are going to be the party of married churchgoers, though, they need to change their tune on two key issues. They must drop their opposition to same-sex marriage, and they must quit obsessing over illegal immigrants. These two issues alone are almost entirely responsible for the Republicans’ image and reputation as the party of old white men.
What conservatives do not seem to grasp is that same-sex marriage is not an issue for gays only, but also for the young, who support it overwhelmingly, without question. And if the GOP really is the party of marriage, shouldn’t it be in favor of extending the goods of marriage to as many as possible? If marriage is everything we conservatives say it is, why should we want to deny its moral benefits to gays? The point is to stand for marriage, for an institution that promotes human freedom, and not to barricade ourselves behind the status quo ante. That’s how the party of freedom becomes the party of reaction.
So too on immigration. What many on the right have failed to understand is that demands to tighten the border, loud howls of outrage over any proposal to grant amnesty to “illegal aliens,” are deeply offensive to Hispanics and likely to estrange them from the Republican Party for a generation. Tom Wolfe explains why. Like many on the right, he had always assumed that
Mexicans who had gone to the trouble of coming to the United States legally, going through all the prescribed steps, would resent the fact that millions of Mexicans were now coming into the United States illegally across the desert border. I couldn’t have been more mistaken. I discovered that everyone who thought of himself as Latin, even people who had been in this country for two and three generations, were wholeheartedly in favor of immediate amnesty and immediate citizenship for all Mexicans who happened now to be in the United States. And this feeling had nothing to do with immigration policy itself, nothing to do with law, nothing to do with politics, for that matter. To them, this was not a debate about immigration. The very existence of the debate itself was to them a besmirching of their fiction-absolute, of their conception of themselves as Latins. Somehow the debate, simply as a debate, cast an aspersion upon all Latins, implying doubt about their fitness to be within the border of such a superior nation.
The voices of immigration restrictionists on the right have pushed Hispanics into identifying with their ethnic group rather than encouraging them to identify themselves as something else instead—as churchgoers, for instance.
The Republican Party cannot win by playing the Democrats’ game of identity politics, but perhaps it might improve its chances by emphasizing a different kind of identity altogether—not identification with the special-interest groups that make up an unsteady coalition, but with stable institutions like marriage and church that enable men and women to be free.
If a majority of young people eventually favor "plural marriage" AKA polygamy, should Republicans get on board with that, too?
Exactly. nIf marriage is a good thing, should we back those who demand the right to apply the term marriage to something that is not? That would be foolish even if their non-marriage was something neutral. Must we back them even if the non-marraige is something that we think is harmful?
Can you show me ANYTHING in the Constitution that places marriage within the purview of the federal government? No. The word isn't even IN the Constitution. Neither abortion nor homosexuality are within the enumerated powers – they have NO RIGHT to deal with these issues at all, issues that lost the election – and may lose the nation if you SoCons don't get out of the way.
.That is an absurd argument. The Constitution doesn't specifically mention many things. n nLook, either marriage is something in particular…or it is nothing in particular. As pointed out before, the logical extension of your position is the marriage could be polygamy, polyandry, etc. n nMarriage is what it is….and always has been. That is, an exclusively male/female proposition….for GOOD reasons. n nEveryone has the same rights now. Every single adult male can marry any single adult female. Some want special rights for gays to support their particular lifestyle choice. n nIf the Republicans sell out on this issue, I will not support them again. I would rather be in the shrinking majority than sell out on this fundamental critical issue.
Conservatives are pretty selective when talking about the "traditional" meaning of marriage. They always leave out that marriage is traditionally understood to be a life long commitment. Perhaps they forget that part because divorce is part of their lives too. Marriage was exclusively a male/female proposition in the past because gays were historically social outcasts.
Caligula appointed his horse as consul. If he had wanted to marry his horse instead, should we let him do so in the name "of extending the goods of marriage to as many as possible?"
The animal argument is quite possibly the dumbest thing on the planet. Animals are not human beings. Homosexuals are. n nThis is like saying: "Oh what, you want to make murdering homosexuals illegal? I guess that means we'll have to make killing animals illegal too!" n nYou're on the wrong side of history, and this argument is making you look even worse.
Sorry. Gay eros permeated some pagan cultures directly and indirectly two milleniums ago. The notion that history is some kind of liberal progress into utopia is on the wrong side of history. The debate is whether this is on the right side of Judaism and how we would define it.
What does that have to do with anything? Why are the actions of a 2000 year old culture relevant to deciding what's fair and right in 2012? Why should Judaism or any other religion have anything to do with this discussion? n nThe answer, via Thomas Jefferson: n"My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there." n
Because we're Jews here and care about those things and your dogmatic spouting of atheist pieties not only reveals a tyrannical distemper of intolerance but is misaddressed. Even on that level, old Tom, an slaveholder addicted to his need for compulsory labor to keep his debt-addled domestic economy in check, talked a better game than he walked with all that liberte and egalite. Get your goyisher butts back to schmucksvile.
Sorry, but you are still wrong. n n1. I am a Jew, ethnically and culturally n2. I just don't believe that god parted the red sea, knocked up the virgin mary, dictated the book of mormon to joseph smith, etc. n3. This may have a Jewish influence, but this is a political site. n4. We all theoretically respect the constitution n5. Per the constitution, your religious beliefs are irrelevant and may not be pressed upon others. n6. Therefore, it is you who is the tyrant and oppressor. It is you who is depriving others of their freedoms, and not the other way. As Jews, I would hope we should have longer memories. n n7. It's also super irritating how you insist on attempting to obfuscate your fundamentally ferklempt ideology with incoherent sesquipedalian schnookery.
Why does the author not point out that large majorities of Hispanics and Afro-Americans strongly oppose allowing homosexuals to obtain state marriage licenses? Certainly, this is an argument that could have appealed to them had the Republicans avoided being identified as the party of millionaire financiers. I would rather that the Republicans back down on Obamacare or opposition to higher taxes rather than permitting a central pillar of Western civilization (the Torah calls homosexuality an "abomination") to be demolished by this latest group of nihilists.
Great point.
Republicans can do whatever they want. But if they believe in Constitutional, limited government and the Rule of Law – and if neither homosexualty nor abortion are dealt with in the Constitution, then they need to STFU about those issues and deal with them at the state level. America lost last night because of these two issues, period. But, hey, if you believe these extra-Constitutional issues are more important than the econmy, taxes, education, jobs, national security, defense, foreign policy, an iranian nuke, etc…. knock yourself out. But you and those voting like you are destroying freeedom and liberty. And a whole lotta lives.
In fact this issue of gay marriage is more important than those issues. You justndon't have the wisdom to understand this.
Exactly! There are more important things then gay marriage and abortion. Those things need to stay with the states so we can focus on the economy and foreign policy. We can't pick and choose pet issues that fall outside of federal jurisdiction to Jerry-rig into the system.
We agree, then, inthisdimesion, that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, and that nothing in the Constituion permits the federal government to tell a state that the state cannot outlaw abortion and cannot outlaw homosexual acts, nor to tell a state that the state must recognize same sex unions. Good; that shows you have principles and are not simply spouting partisan talking points or personal prejudices. It is refreshing to see such analysis and honesty from someone who uses compelling and rigorous analytical arguments like "STFU." [cont'd]
[cont'd] But there is a real problem, inthisdimension, if the full faith and credit clause is not amended. If e.g. Utah were to recognize polygamous marriages, or Hawaii were to recognize "marriages" between two people of the same sex, or Califnia were to recognize "marriages" between a person and an animal or an inflatable doll or a mechanical device, the full faith and credit clause would probably require every other state to recognize those unions, even though recognition of those unions was considered a fantasy as recently as 20 years ago, and certainly when each of the states ratified the constitution. This is the problem that the Defense of Marriage Act was intended to remedy, but in my opinion, the remedy is not adequate, as the Constitution cannot be overridden by statute.
Wrong. Marriage recognition is due the principle of comity, not full faith and credit. And states want to recognize each other's marriages, because of the absurdity of citizens gaining or losing marriage when they cross a state line. The purpose of marriage is to create kinship and family stability. These social goods apply equally to same-sex couples, and we should have the strongest of reasons to deny marriage. So far, the opponents of marriage equality have only offered (when you strip away the rhetoric): I don't like Gay people, and my god doesn't either. n nNeither of these are a valid reason to base a public policy in a culture that values individuals in a secular legal system.
absolutely! put the nearest lowest common denominator on the nearest altar and bow down to it
What would the LCD be for Republicans – "We're not Democrats"? That's like saying the lowest common denominator among Jews should be "We're not Christians"!
Sadly, cbalducc, for some Jews that IS the LCD.
by analogy, Conservaitives are Reform Jews, just ten years later…
Republicans should do what ever they can do to lose elections. More culture war works for me.
Republicans are already on board with it. Newt Gingrich married his teacher, then cheated on her and left her when she was sick, then he cheated on his second wife (as he was castigating Bill Clinton for the same), and left her too for his mistress, who is now his wife. Rush has been married and divorced many times. n nThe forefathers of many of The Commentary authors and readers had polygamous families, and that seemed ok… Abraham, Jacob, King David, Solomon… to name just a few.
cbalducc is A Fox follwer aka: no facts
This article is absolute defeatist nonsense and is not worthy of space in Commentary . I hope as a long time subscriber of Commentary that this kind of rubbish is not to be the new norm!
This article is absolute defeatist nonsense and is not worthy of space in Commentary . I hope as a long time subscriber of Commentary that this kind of rubbish is not to be the new norm!
exactly…
This writer is absolutely clueless. Do you compromise freedom? Do you compromise democracy? Do you compromise the most inner values? To champion gay marriage is the most stupid thing i heard and it will not yield one Democratic vote.As far as "Old White men', this writer is even more clueless. Ryan "Old"? Rubio , Martinez,Cruz, Mia Love, "white"?Stick to literary reviews and oh, I'll remember never to read one of your columns….
Very well said!
Agree. n nIf you will indulge a partial repost: n nWe have an electorate that is either poorly educated or superficially if expensively educated for two generations in socialist dogma, n nWe have a mushrooming underclass of voters increasingly dependent on government and ;oath to take risks with stopping or reducing the transfers. This dependent fraction will increase for every year into the future, added to by a tidal wave of boomer retirees. n nWe have Obamacare, which will now entrench, and ensure that in the future, parties will argue about who will provide more or cut more benefits. This has occurred in every western nation that has adopted universal healthcare. n nCanada and Scandinavia, wealthy, homogeneously educated populations, were able to make a go of it. Other nations, not so much. We will settle in somewhere between France and Greece, likely. n nIt was nice while it lasted. n nThere is no sugar coating it. It is a disaster. n nAnd is is a result of adverse cultural and educational changes, not because the Republicans failed to 'celebrate diversity'. n nThe electorate rejected a good and decent and competent man for a cool, dishonest and narcissistic incompetent, who had brought us decline and promises us more, and they thought they were doing the right thing. n n n
His literary columns are actually pretty good. Why avoid using a chef just because he's lousy at carpentry?
It would hurt to champion freedom. Now about drug prohibition….
Out of curiosity, what does freedom mean to you? Saying "freedom" and "oppress gay rights" in the same sentence is massively incongruent. n nHere's what freedom actually means: n"The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." In a practical government, it means doing so in a manner that does not harm others. If you can tell me why gay marriage harms you in practical terms beyond its perceived ickiness and misalignment with your prejudices, I'm all ears. n nThe Republican party was created to stop slavery. Slavery, segregation, miscegenation laws, prohibition, and theocratic government is not freedom. Neither is oppressing gay marriage. n nYou are on the wrong side of history, and are doomed to repeat it. n
What conservatives need to do is stop listening to magazine writers that live in DC and New York. The idea that we should support same-sex marriage and illegal immigration in order to appeal to liberal youth is beyond idiotic.
Right. Instead we should support the destruction of America.
More than 1/2 of the children in some minority groups are born outside of marriage. The percentage is increasing in the white community as well. In some communities, no one for three or more generations (about the time we instituted AFDC) has friends or relatives who were married. Kids from those homes grow up in single parent families, or with a succession of their mother's live in boyfriends. Many of them fail in school, develop behavior problems, or drift into drugs, dependency, or gangs. If you don't think that contributes to the descruction of American you are not paying attention.
More abortion would cure that.
You can't cure the cheapening of human life by making it cheaper.
Exactly, I agree. Remain the Reactionary party (the author labeled what Republicans are very well!). That's all a liberal can wish for. I, as a liberal, would know.
I see three political parties in our future: the Democratic Socialist Party (now the Democratic Party), the Liberal Party (now the Republican Party), and the Conservative Party (yet to be born).
Actually what we have now is Democrats and Christian Democrats. They both agree. "Government should…"
Totally disagree on homosexual 'marriage. 'If you think republicans advocating that is going to make young people vote I think you are very wrong. Do republicans need to get a better grassroots game and reach out to Hispanics? Yes. Marco Rubio says Hispanics need to know more of what republciasn are for for legal immgiration and less what republicans are against
Did anyone notice that Mia Love and Allen West were defeated by white men?
Both were black conservatives as well.
That was my point.
I agree completely, andis gay marriage such a horrible thing that it is worth throwing the country over?r nr nMartiage is an institution that was created to stabilize society. If gays are going to be part of society it has to include them too. As to polygamy, I find it repugnant, but it is hardly out of the norm in human culture, far less so than gay marriage, so I will not oppose it on grounds of tradition. Polygamy is a problem because of the apparatus of benefits the modern stare has erected around marriage. We have no laws against shacking up with multiple people, just recognizing their benefits.r nr nAnd this cultural argument against latino immigration is horrifying. It is just the latest in the argument against Eastern Europeans, Southern Europeans and east asians. It is pure ethnic hatred.
What planet are you talking about? Numerous cultures recognized polygamy at one time or another. (Not for me,, thank you.) Name one pre-21st century culture that recognized same sex unions as a form of marriage rather than mere friendship. Even societies that had no stigma against homosexuality – or that celebrated homosexuality – would have laughed at the idea of same sex 'marriage'.
This is pretty simple. You electoral wins are no longer enough to win an election. In the 21st century you either have a big tent and welcome in people you may not agree with entirely or you pigeonhole yourselves into obscurity. Judging from the comments posted here it seem the right will be doing the latter. Enjoy your self imposed marginalization. I am not complaining about it. Obama 2012!
Correct. And funny too.
I whole-heartedly agree with this post. I would add that Hispanics don't even consider immigration as one of their top issues. They, like most Americans, worry about jobs, the economy, and the safety net. n nHowever, before Republicans can even make an argument for their ideas, most Hispanics don't even listen because they don't think Republicans even think of them as equal citizens. The way some conservatives talk about immigration makes them come off anti-Hispanics. And it only takes a few comments here and there for demagogues to use in their commercials and talking points and have them repeated so often that the average Hispanic hears it many times a day. And so, they don't even consider Republicans. n nThe next issue of importance, if you can even get some to listen, is the safety net. And once again, many conservatives talk about the budget in the way that allow people of the left to tar Republicans with the "anti-poor" charge. Remember Romney talking about not worrying about the poor? Yeah, well, I'll bet you every Hispanic has heard that a time or two. Sadly, many Hispanics rely on that safety net and so any talk of it being taken away is going to create fear in having a Republican win. n nFor Hispanics and other voters that might some day be persuadable, Republicans must really rethink how they approach these issues. They must learn to speak the language of these voters. They must LISTEN to their concerns and then have a dialogue about these issues. But most importantly, we must realize that most of these people are not ideologues and issue-centered people who want to here this or that statistic. They want to identify themselves in their politicians. Do the politicians understand? Have they been through hard times (sorry Mitt)? Candidates that can actually have a narrative that these voters can connect with will be key in moving forward. n nIn short, we must listen, adjust, and persuade with more than just logic. Senator Rubio, are you ready to run?
Yes for immigration, no for gay marriage
Yes for immigration reform, no for gay marriage.
Agree. Republicans must go after the Latino vote. They have largely conservative values and work hard. We need to embrace Latinos going forward. There is no choice.
The GOP need to adapt or disappear. nA. Coulter is of the opinion that if Obama win the Republicans must dissolve the party and start from ZERO!
Conservative don't compromise our values we're better off with the RINO's just becoming liberal democrats and caucusesing with the democrats, we don't need them in our party. This is the party of Reagan, not Megan McCain. n nWhat's going to happen to all of these people that are dependent on government that are going to be out in the cold when we become Greece after the democrats wreck the system.
And get rid of libertarians too. And those favoring med pot. You are now down to 10% of the electorate. I'm sure you can win something with that kind of support.
If marriage and churchgoing (or in our case, synagogue-going) are in decline, that is the fault of the American people and is something to be confronted, not accepted. As a Republican, I would rather see us disappear than embrace lifestyles I find repugnant. n nAs for immigration, I have three conditions: learn to speak English and make it your first (note that I don't say only) language, obey our laws and accept our Anglo-Saxon traditions and culture, and don't be a burden on society. Apparently this is too much to ask for our new arrivals, supported by our New Elite and its religious fervor for "multiculturalism".
"As for immigration, I have three conditions: learn to speak English and make it your first (note that I don't say only) language." nGut gezocht. Our grandparents and great grandparents made it a priority for their kids to learn English, and proper English at that. They did not insist on bilingual education, or that the schools award equal credit for speaking English with a Yiddish syntax. n
Memo to Moshe Rabaineu: n nRe: Rebranding n nMoshe, we've been doing some exit polls and re-examining the internals following the repudiation of our old "Yahwist" brand following the overwhelmingly mob flash show of support for the n u05d4u05b8u05e2u05b5u05d2u05b6u05dc" u05d6u05b8u05d4u05b8u05d1.brand. Aaron is no fool, and if we are not to be perceived as hopelessly out of touch maybe the time has come to rethink your positions. n nYours sincerely, Bikur Shir
A few thoughts I've had while reading this thread: n n1. When will people stop making the absurd argument that legalizing gay marriage will open the door to legal polygamy or bestiality? Last time I checked, animals don't have legal standing and can't sign marriage contracts. I also find it ironic that the same people who made this argument were eager to vote for Romney, a Mormon. If you don't like gays, that's your right. But at least be honest enough to admit that it's a personal preference. n n2. The United States was built on the backs of immigrants. To deny immigrants the right to live and work here betrays one of our nation's core principles. Even beyond the legal issues, Latinos are set to overtake Caucasians as the majority. If the GOP fails to adapt and continues to alienate the Latino vote, I can't see them ever winning the presidency again. n n3. Reagan was actually pretty liberal in some areas. He opposed banning gay teachers and legalized abortion (both in California), granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, denounced torture and helped the poor out of his own pocket. That doesn't really sound like the GOP of today. n nTo sum up: this thread, full of hateful comments directed at an author who isn't any making that awful or revolutionary a statement, is truly disheartening. It seems to me the Republican party is sliding backwards and if it doesn't make some course corrections, in time it may be lost for good.
I posted a few other comments but yours struck me as full of misconceptions. nFirst- why not allow polygamy or bestiality, if you allow gay marriage? In many people's minds (including those Muslims that the MSM wants us to respect) like and practice polygamy and abhor homosexuality- let alone gay marriage. And,.by the way, you are wrong on animals and contracts. Plenty of people have left their fortune to their favorite dog.My own view is simple, let people do whatever they want but don't call lit marriage.Leave that to the churches and synagogues. nSecond,"Latinos are set to overtake caucasians as the majority", HUH? When, in two hundred years? We live now and Caucasians are still threequarters of the population.And virtually everyone agrees that The GOP should reach otu to the Hispanics. hello ,Rubio, Cruz, martinez… nLastly, Reagan was pretty intransigeant on the core aspects of GIOP philosophy: less government, less taxes, better defense. That is still the core today.
"This is the party of Reagan, not Megan McCain." n nThe piece reads like it was written by Meghan McCain. Or, actually, an even dimmer version of MM.
D.G. Myers seems to be advocating that the GOP can become more relevent and viable if it just becomes more like the demagogic Democrats. Better still would be to dissolve our borders, abandon capitalism, shred the constitution and become anti-theists as Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others on the genocidal Left have so insistently urged. Where do we draw the line and why?
This editorial is just more defeatist, RINO cowardice. The GOP convention looked like the damned immigration office with all the ethnicity paraded about and half the dialogue in Spanish. And all that made us was a laughingstock. If that is what you want the GOP to be, then get the hell out and go home to the Demonazis where you belong, cowards.
Do you understand the fundamental purpose of marrige? Think about it for awhile, then get back to us.
"Do you understand the fundamental purpose of marrige?" n nSame as always, ensure the transfer of wealth.
I call the Democrat Party the party of single females. That is not a very good alternative.
And yet the Democratic party sees itself as the party of poor handicapped Muslim anarchist lesbian ex drug addicts opposed to the very notion that governance should exist at all. n nSo, good luck with that.
I had no idea that Commentary readers were such a pack of hateful fools. Even a dissenting conversation unleashes the sanctimonious, absolutist stupidity that has killed the conservative movement. You're right though, I agree that the GOP is no place for anyone who understands that freedom means freedom for everyone. The GOP represented by this forum is no different from Democrats and deserves to die, and it is.
Glad someone here gets that freedom goes both ways, as does small government.
Personally, I think Republicans should make it part of their agenda to push forth a PACs like system for civil unions for homosexuals. The PACs system in France allows homosexuals to engage in a civil union that includes all of the financial benefits of being married without being classified as marriage. In America, civil unions are just marriage under a different name. n nThe bottom line is there are more important things then gay marriage. Putting a PACs like system on the agenda will allow conservatives to stay true to themselves while getting gay marriage off of the table. Once a PACs system is in place gay marriage will no longer be a liability for Republicans. It is a tragedy that Republicans are depicted as the party of prejudice. n nI really don't see how Republicans can compromise on immigration to the degree that liberals want though. We've tried amnesty before and it doesn't do a darn thing. All we can do is try to better communicate our side of things. America can't afford to just let anyone who wants to come here come here. Countries have borders for a reason – look at Rome, look at Europe and the influx of Middle Eastern refugees. Republicans have always been bad at communicating their ideas. Reagan was an exception. n nIt is sad that Hispanics seem to identify more with their ethnic group then their country. I personally don't understand it.
Your next to the last line is the best:Reagan ,indeed, was the Great Communicator. We need another one. Marco Rubio ,right now, seems ot me the best at it.
The country is in trouble economically, cuturally, educationally and militarily because people like you, inthisdimension, have somehow convinced themselves that this nation or any nation can survive as a free democratic republic without strong marriages and strong families, strong communities, personal morality, and a sense of personal responsibilty to one's family, community, employer and employees, and nation, transcending mere fear of criminal punishment., and that any necessary values can be instilled by schools and government, and without faith in G-d. n nAnd Romney lost to the Celebrity in Chief precisely because so many people are clueless on those same issues.
i may be clueless but I am still sane. It is nice to hear that freedom and democracy are no more important that gay marriage. Actually, yuo don't know my position. I favor that the state stay out of any relationship of people or people and animals, or people and trees…In other words, let people decide on any relationship they wish but DO NOT CALL IT MARRIAGE!!!_marriage is between a man and a woman,period. If you want to have a contractual relationship with your dog, or a tree, or the same gender or with two people, go ahead, BUT DO NOT CAL IT MARRIAGE!!
Every generation thinks it doesn't have to listen to those from the previous generation. In fact, the "old white men" of the previous generation can offer us a lot of life lessons that are as relevant now as they were when those "old white men" were young.
Some traditions need to die. If the previous generation always had their way, we'd still have segregation.
It's more than a little disappointing that an article arguing the GOP needs to let go of its old white men complex would choose to leave out the third and final piece of that puzzle, the "men" part. Women are the single largest demographic in this country, and you don't even use the word until the last line. Sure, the GOP needs to get over its homophobia. Sure, it needs to get over its xenophobia. But its insistent misogyny and its persistent confusion that there is anything amiss in their attitudes and policies toward women, their right to equal pay and their right to make their own healthcare decisions without government interference or public referendum are equally as important. There is no logical reason for you to leave women out of your article other than that you, like the GOP, just don't think women matter or are entitled to progressive policy action that benefits us and our families. Articles like this are why in 2012, women still have to loudly justify their right to contraception and why we have men nearly winning senate seats who think you can't get pregnant from rape. Because people who know better leave it out of the dialogue. Because people who know better just don't care.
Pre-enlightenment views on abortion and gays? Well, the ancient pagans were per-enlightenment, and they were fine with both. n nAlso (much like Barack Obama), with letting unwanted newborns die untended and abandoned, although the Greeks at least had the decency and self-sacrifice to climb a mountain and leave the infant on it. to die there Obama was willing to just let the hospital staff leave them in a linen closet until the infant dies from lack of nourishment, hydration or warmth. n nBut at least the ancient pagans weren't some kind of religious nut, right?
The rights accorded to married couples by the state can already be had by any number of legal mechanisms that aren't marriage. The only natural right/product of marriage that gays cannot have without restriction is the right to adopt children. Certain religious agencies and I believe (although I could be wrong) some states prohibit the adoption of children to gays, single people, people who are too old, etc. If SS"M" is legalized, then those restrictions go away, along with any agencies who have a conscientious objection to them. The plain biological fact is that in order for a gay couple to be two daddies or two mommies is to gain the cooperation of someone of the opposite sex and then bring a child into the world intentionally depriving it of its biological parent. This, sadly has been the trend in the wider society, so there is no standing taboo against farming eggs and embryos, paying surrogates, or simply bringing kids into the world with no father. This is a disaster for society- gay "marriage" is almost beside the point. In fact, if anything, conservatives should be taking up the cudgels to restrict all of the above and taking an active role to encourage marriage, encourage staying together, and discourage divorce, and clamp down on the in vitro/sperm bank industry. If we took the lives of children seriously, and our legislation reflected that seriousness, gay "marriage" would be a moot point.
Drug prohibition is going down. It will take the Republicans with it.
And the result will take what is left of civilization down with it.
Well you could try to solve just the economic problems and get enough votes to win or you can try to solve all the problems and lose.r nr nBTW before the Progressives instituted Drug Prohibition in 1914 was American Civilization in decline? r nr nAnd I do love so called “conservatives” championing a measure instituted by Progressives. I guess we are all progressives now.
Those who do not evolve are doomed to fail. Even the current evolution of the Republican party is an evolution and pivot from what came before it. n nIts worth pointing out however, that the Republican Party was actually created by a similar situation. The Whig party broke apart over the issue of extending slavery to the states. Those who opposed slavery became Republicans, and became the party of small government, businesses, workers, and actual undiluted, non-2000+ year old dogmatic freedom. Freedom and small government goes both ways. n nWhile opposing gay marriage is not as egregiously, transparently wrong as slavery, its still egregiously and transparently wrong. Think how stupid all those people who supported segregation and miscegenation laws feel today. n nWhat was so wrong with the Republican Party of Lincoln and Goldwater? By making this all about ancient religious prejudices, we're violating what we originally stood for and violating the constitution.
Yes, liberalism conflates biological and moral evolution. Your labeling of 3,000 years of Jewish religious tradition as egregiously and transparently wrong is a liberal argument posing as a reasoned attack on the abstractly indefensible but fairly re-considered as a transgression against stable lessons learned from experienced, delivered ex cathedra by fiat. I'm not saying these things aren't debatable but your whole stance shuts off debate in the name of attacking "ancient religious prejudice" on a Jewish website called "Commentary".
I'm sorry, but there are three things you need to accept: n n1. Religion is fake n2. The mad rantings of a prophet from 3000 years ago are no longer a suitable compass for the modern era. n3. By design, our government is protected from religious influence. Jefferson made sure of it. n4. Freedom goes both ways n nLeviticus also ranted against clothing of mixed fiber and shellfish as abomination, and I don't see people getting too upset about that. n nAlso, are you aware that the author of this article was fired for writing it? That is some oppressive BS right there.
I'm sorry, there are a couple of things you yourself have forget to consider with the sensitivity you routinely bring to your utterances: n n1. "Religion is fake" and the "mad rantings of a prophet" are adolescent snark at once of such profound stupidity and superficial self-congratulatory lack of meaning that, like a flaccid penis, it doesn't even rise to the level of observation much less comment. n2. The much debated meaning of the First Amendment's strictures against Congressional sanction of an established religion are not the sole property of Thomas Jefferson and its drafters and ratifiers would have found your tyrannical atheistic purging of religious influence from the America culture (or the Constitutional imposition of gay marriage) stark raving bonkers. Prayer, for example, in pubic schools, was an unremarked fact of life until the late 1950's. The immutable Constitutional intolerance of God was not discovered into close to two hundred years after the republic's founding. n3. The author was not fired, he was a free lancer. n4. You're diktats preclude freedom of discussion–the closest political writer I can think of to compare your sentiments to is not Thomas Jefferson but Joe Stalin. n5. As to Leviticus, see your points 1. and 2. and point 1. here. n n n n
"Religion is fake" "mad rantings of a prophet"–there you go, the most incisive examination of the Spirit since Jacques Maritain. Case closed, eh? LIke Joe Stalin, you pound out these little pronunciamentos intended to rhetorically drive the nails of semi-learned abstractions into the coffin of concepts that offend your lack of understanding.
For those who think Republicans should become "Cosmotarians" (people who are as hostile to "big religion" as they are to "big government"), there is already a place for you – the Libertarian Party, and the last time I checked, Gary Johnson didn't do so well.
Lovely to have all the Salon readers. And fascinating to learn that rich, old, straight white men comprise 48% of the country. Wow!
I. Cannot believe how funny these arguments are Republicans are going to be extinct so why try to explain things to dying people lol Let them die peacefully with respect Lol
Funny arguements but I think we should let a dying party Die in peace…No need to make it any harder than it is Lol