And prohibition (not protection) is the real issue here. It should be said that the movement to legalize gay marriage through the US Constitution is very small compared to the soc-con effort to prohibit it. It’s the social conservatives who have nationalized the issue. The focus of the gay rights movement has been at the level of state law, which is as I’ve said, where it belongs.

Perhaps they should talk to those of us who have spent years in therapy (some, including more than one close friend, in shock therapy) to try to change… only to realize that is is, in fact, immutable.

Still doesn’t really address its inherent fairness or applicability to basic principle or constitutionality, only perception.

but unless we’re going to make the argument that the Civil Rights movement was a violation of proper federalist protection for some states’ right to racial bias

I was beginning to wonder why no one had made this point yet. It’s the all important one, because it directly answers why there is no national consensus on the issue, rather than addressing whether one is necessary. The crucial difference between the civil rights movement and gay marriage (or gay rights more broadly), is that in the 1950s and 60s there was total consensus on the key constitutional aspect of discrimination on race: All sides implicitly agreed that race was an immutable characteristic of a human being. Such a preconditional consensus is of course presently lacking in the case of gay rights. Beneath the surface, disagreement on this matter is what drives all views on both sides of the divide.

Yes, CPAC has always attracted a fringe but it’s a problem when it ONLY attracts the fringe. It’s also a problem when the biggest speakers are more known for fringe ideas or mean comments than for intellectual discourse or real achievement. And that’s also the case here. The big ideas that conservatives ought to value–markets, families, limited government–aren’t really much on display.

Maybe I’m just misreading things but I think this is pretty bad for the Conservative movement.

I normally default to a federalist stance, and have settled for one in this case as better than some horror like a permanent DOMA, but unless we’re going to make the argument that the Civil Rights movement was a violation of proper federalist protection for some states’ right to racial bias (like, say, my beloved Virginia), I don’t see how leaving my right to get married to the whims of a ballot is in any way fair, or consistent with American principles.

When you do that, you have to make sure you have almost total public support for it. Even a simple majority is not good enough at this level, because when you take things off the democratic table, you are in a very real sense repressing debate…and potentially sowing entrenched discord within the country from people who quite rightly, want a controversial policy to be subject to their vote.

And I bet you, as a conservative…

But, but, I score libertarian on the World’s Smallest Political Quiz!

You’re right that there are exceptions to states rights, but each one you identified are rights that are, and have always been, matters of broad national consensus in this country. Gay marriage is not only an almost entirely new issue, like abortion, it splits the country more-or-less down the middle in numbers and cuts it in half geographically. This is not a foundation upon which to build or enforce a national constitutional right (or prohibition) in a democratic society. It’s something that needs to be dealt with closer to home.

Sure, this is why libertarians inevitably end up arguing that you ought to be allowed to marry your sister.

And I bet you, as a conservative, would defend far worse in the name of freedom of speech, or property rights, or the right to bear arms, as would I. There are exceptions to states rights, and there should be.

yours/
peter.

believe there is a strong case to be made that anti-gay marriage laws and state constitutional amendments violate gay Americans’ freedom of association

Sure, this is why libertarians inevitably end up arguing that you ought to be allowed to marry your sister. Interestingly, you will note that marital definitions to prevent incest are all different from state-to-state, and are handled exclusively at the level of state law. I think that’s a good practical proof that you can have variable definitions of marriage within a federalist context, without either the gay rights or soc-cons apocalyptic fears proving true.

Gay marriage just isn’t.

I disagree. The first amendment has been “incorporated” and thus applies to the states. I believe there is a strong case to be made that anti-gay marriage laws and state constitutional amendments violate gay Americans’ freedom of association as well as the establishment clause, and of course the 14th amendment’s equal protection and due process clauses, not to mention the full faith and credit clause of Article IV. Gay marriage foes know this, and they know that even “conservative” judges are susceptible to these arguments, which is why they want to amend the Constitution in the first place.

yours/
peter.

One of the reasons that I am not a conservative is that you are wrong, it is a conservative ideal, and pretty rock bottom. It is those who are more libertarianish who have moved the conservative movement, not the other way around. We won on issues relating to the market to an extent, as liberals of the old type joined with conservatives to resist state action of the leftish sort. Thus liberalism became identified with conservatism, and left leaners adopted the moniker liberal for themselves.

Let us not pretend though that we real liberals are what conservatism is all about. The conservatives have never forgotten what they are all about. It is cultural for them and always has been. They only allied with we liberals because reduced state control was preferable than a state run by leftists and atheists. In the end they have no real problem with the state controlling the economy, trade, whatever. It was just a bad deal once FDR became President. Remember that conservatives dominated the Democratic party until quite recently. As their social control agenda became less powerful many switched parties, especially in the south. Huckabee is just the latest manifestation of this, and he would have garnered large chunks of Democratic support (which still has a large conservative base, especially in the south.)

I hope you are right that liberalism as represented by posters here is the real mainstream within the GOP, but it isn’t because it has to do with conservatism. Let us not confuse labels with reality. Conservatives have beliefs. I don’t share many of them, but they exist, and traditional views of marriage is one of them, whether they are Democrat or Republican.

But you get into so much crap like this thanks to the battle between the social left and social right. Probably the ultimate example of local politics absurdly elevated to the level of national politics is school prayer. Now here’s an issue that should be dealt with by a hand vote at a bloody PTA meeting, and yet you have presidential candidates having to adopt positions on it in electoral politics. It’d be comical, were not so sad.

What is the problem for me with soc-cons, the social left, and all their issues, is the elevation of local politics into national social politics. In situations like gay marriage or abortion, we’re talking about issues where there is no overwhelming national consensus, and there is a clear geographic divide in opinion. I oppose anyone who wants to amend the constitution to introduce new constitutional rights, or constitutional prohibitions, on the back of a paltry 52 or 48 percent in a national opinion survey (whichever way it breaks).

The lost art of federalism would easily resolve this acrimony. Like we used to do with abortion, let Georgia ban gay marriage and let Massachusetts legalize it. If you like it, move to Boston. If you don’t, move to Atlanta. What’s amusing is that in principle, federalism remains in effect for heterosexual marriage. I didn’t get my marriage certificate from the federal government on the back of a federal constitutional right when I got married. I got it from the state of New Mexico, provisioned under local law. Why should it be any different for gay marriage if it’s popularly supported by the state in question?

Perhaps this is merely another illustration of why I thought Thompson had the best positions. He stressed states-rights on this issue specifically.

The specific issues that once defined the “conservative” platform have fractured. There is a large, vaguely libertarian-esque base out there that sees, say, “defending marriage” as the opposite of reducing the government’s interference in our private lives. Who sees greater value in the market power of a large (and largely entrepreneurial) immigrant class than in building a wall along the southern border. Who can oppose wars they think are foolish while also supporting lower spending, less earmarks, and lower taxes.

In other words, the underlying principles of Goldwater Conservatism are alive and well — and quite respectable to uphold (recall Goldwater’s quip about gays in the military: they don’t have to be straight, just shoot straight). Cutting taxes and reducing government spending are outgrowths of a principled stance against the government’s insistence it can dictate our lives—that latter principle is the fundamentally conservative one, at least in the 20th century sense. To hang all these other weights—whether they be crypto-racist concerns over immigration, or homophobia masquerading as concern over marriage (notice the divorce rate lately?)—is to a large degree causing many, and I include myself among them, to abandon the GOP and to never look back. The conservative movement is, I think, quite fundamentally broken, disconnected from its founding principles that, for example, once saw America as the bastion and great hope of the world’s dejected masses yearning to be free. Now we slam shut a metal door and hang a “no vacancy” sign?

I don’t get it. Hence why I could never vote McCain. But it’s also why I could never vote for the sorts of people Malkin, or Kristol, or Goldberg, Hewitt support. It would be morally inconsistent.

I’ve certainly given alternatives to voting for the Democratic candidate.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/07/quo-vadis-conservatives/

Some on the Right advise their readers and listeners to vote Democrat or sit home. My advice is exactly the opposite: Get off the couch and walk the walk for conservative candidates and officeholders who need all the help they can get defending free markets, free minds, and secure borders—no matter who takes the White House in November.

Dissatisfied with the flawed crop of GOP candidates who lacked the energy, organizational skills, and ideological strength to carry the conservative banner and ignite your passions? Then pay attention to the next generation of Republican state legislators who do vote consistently to lower your taxes, uphold the sanctity of life, defend marriage, and cut government spending. Support their re-election bids. Reward them for standing with you instead of their Democrat opponents and the liberal media.

It is acceptable to ask conservatives to sacrifice some of their ideals this election because they will not have a viable candidate to carry them forward. The Party has spoken and chosen a non-conservative to be its head this election; you can throw your ideals behind a third party candidate or accept a Democratic victory in November. And something tells me the Democrats will have even less in common with the conservative persuasion than McCain does.

Conservatives should hold their nose and vote for McCain, and then put their effort into congressional fights across the country. This is not the end of the conservative movement, but those within it have to be realistic about the matter we have in front of us.