One conservative who doesn't like the Family Marriage Amendment - Jay Maynard

> Recent entries
> Calendar view
> Friends page
> User info
> Jay's web page

Wednesday, 14 July 2004


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
2011 - One conservative who doesn't like the Family Marriage Amendment

My long-time LJ stalker (yes, youngvanwinkle, this means you) posted,

I know there's a good chunk of conservatives out there that don't support this kind of thing. I just wish they'd actually open their mouths and criticize their party for it, the way they're so gleeful to criticize the Democrats for the things they do that they're opposed to...

Guess what? I don't support this kind of thing. I think amending the Constitution to take away people's rights is the worst thing that we as a nation can do to it.

Not only that, I believe that marriage needs to be separated into two parts: civil, which should be open to any two people willing to enter a committed, monogamous relationship, and religious, with whatever the religion in question requires and permits. The current state of affairs amounts to nothing less than religious imposition of their values on American society, including those who do not share those values.

Yes, I am a Republican. I think my party's wrong on this, insofar as it actually as a party supports this kind of thing. I will not, however, change my party affiliation: there's far more of the Democrats' agenda that I disagree with, and more strongly, and even if they were to take power (an event I think would be a serious setback for this country), the state of marriage would not advance in any significant amount in the direction I think it should go.

current mood: [mood icon] contemplative

(5 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:shelbystripes
Date: - 0000
(Link)
I'll first say that I assumed you were aware that I'd unbanned you, since I'd posted it in my LJ (and not behind an LJ-cut), and vakkotaur had responded to the specific point... and knowing that he'd read it, I'd assumed you'd heard about it as well. I apologize for making assumptions.

Anyway...

I think amending the Constitution to take away people's rights is the worst thing that we as a nation can do to it.

Then why aren't you jumping up and down, kicking and screaming, like you would if a Democrat were attempting the same thing from their side? Similarly, you made a reference in your LJ a few days ago about "never being comfortable" with the Patriot Act's "clear infringements on civil liberties". If a Democrat were doing something that you saw as a clear infringement of your civil liberties, I know for sure that "uncomfortable" is not the strongest word you'd use, by far.

Which was my whole point. You let these things slide when your party does them. And as a result, your party becomes more like my party, but in a worse way (IMO), as it becomes this religious form of a big-government party.

I'm fully aware that you don't support this kind of thing. My point was, being aware of that, that you don't speak out against it the way you would if it were a Democrat doing it. You don't make more people aware that you don't support this kind of thing. You don't encourage others to not support this kind of thing, the way you tend to try to encourage others to not support the things Democrats do.

As long as you keep reserving your vitriol for the Democrats alone, your own party will keep mutating into this thing full of things that make you "uncomfortable", until you're forced to join the Democrats because you're forced to concede that they would be the lesser of the two evils.

I will add that your POV on marriage is pretty much the same as mine, with me also personally desiring the civil/religious split.

I'll also add that since I tend to sit center-left, I also tend to be a rank-and-file Democrat, which is why I don't end up criticizing Democrats much--I don't really disagree with them strongly on much of anything. Now, if they do something colossally stupid (involving the stripping of civil rights and liberties--and please don't make any points about the 2nd Amendment, since you know I agree with Dems on that issue too) you will hear me go after them.
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
I don't jump up and down and scream about things I don't think are going to happen. I didn't think the Family Marriage Amendment was going anywhere, so it wasn't necessary to fight against it. One left-wing Congressman from New York introduces a bill every session to repeal the Second Amendment. It has approximately the same chance of passage as I do of becoming Pope, so I don't comment on it.

Similarly, I doubt the PATRIOT Act will ever be repealed or modified, so I don't waste cycles on it.

And yes, I know you agree with the Democrats on the Second Amendment. That's one reason that I will not vote for them. What's worse for them is that the American public now believes they will infringe on the right to keep and bear arms as a default state, even though individual members here and there feel the same way about it as I do. (Without those members, Minnesota wouldn't have a shall-issue handgun carry permit system - or wouldn't have had, had a judge not suddenly decided that a common legislative trick was unconstitutional in that specific case.) As Eric Raymond has pointed out, for the Democrats to put that issue behind them and win over those who, like me, believe the Second Amendment means exactly what it says, not only must they stop ignoring the issue (as they have done ever since 2000), they must actively support gun rights. Until then, I won't trust them.
[User Picture]
From:shelbystripes
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Similarly, I doubt the PATRIOT Act will ever be repealed or modified, so I don't waste cycles on it.

So you allow something that infringes on your civil liberties to stand, simply because you don't feel it'll be defeated anytime soon? Honestly, this doesn't sound like you.

I feel that there's a vast difference between not protesting something evil because it'll never pass, and not protesting something evil because it's already passed and doing its evil work. I don't think it's "similar" at all.
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
It's called "picking your battles". I didn't spend a lot of time and effort on fighting the Ugly Gun Ban (otherwise known as the ban on so-called "assault weapons") once it passed, either, because I knew that we'd be stuck with it.

Should a credible effort surface that actually stands a chance of blunting the PATRIOT Act's infringements on civil liberties, I'll get behind it. Until then, I've got bigger fish to fry.
[User Picture]
From:shelbystripes
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Your repeated statements defending the Second Amendment seem to come about regardless of whether there's any specific movement or "battle" associated with protecting or infringing it, or not. So I find this a little hard to accept as an excuse from you.

But only a little.

> go to top
LiveJournal.com