creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
R. Emmett Tyrrell
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.
20 Nov 2014
A Modest Proposal to My Left-Wing Friends

WASHINGTON — I have a suggestion for my left-wing Democratic friends in light of all the controversy … Read More.

13 Nov 2014
The President of No!

WASHINGTON — In the gloom of the day after last week's election I think even his allies in the media … Read More.

6 Nov 2014
The Elections and the Last Racists

WASHINGTON — So what did you think of the 2014 election? Do I hear talk of a wave election? Is 2014 … Read More.

Another Peaceful Solution

Comment

WASHINGTON — The campaign to overturn in the courts California's Proposition 8 is a perfect example of one of my most deeply held findings. Check that! Two of my most deeply held findings.

The first is that liberals always go too far. They often start out with a good value and drive it right off the cliff. For instance, they start with peace or justice or tolerance, and they go off the rails, usually getting the opposite. The second finding is that conservatives embrace greater diversity than liberals. They are not ideologues, but rather creatures of a philosophy that allows them more latitude than liberals, who really are ideologues, have.

Let us dilate on the last matter first, as it really does shine a light on an aspect of conservatism that rarely is noted. Two major legal minds of the conservative movement are on opposite sides of the case over Proposition 8. One is Charles J. Cooper. He is a star in the conservative legal firmament, and he considers marriage to be a matter between a man and a woman. The other is Ted Olson. He considers it to be a matter of man and woman, woman and woman, and man and man. As he told The Washington Post the other day, discrimination on the basis of sex is "wrong" and "hurtful," and he has "never understood it."

Both are friends of mine, and I respect both men's views, though I side with Cooper. Moreover, I wonder about the liberals who hold these values today. Where were they in, say, 1960 or 1950 or any time back when gay rights were unthinkable? But here we are in 2010, and the whole liberal movement is with Ted. OK, I am with them, to a point.

When I got to think about it, I thought it was wrong to deny a stable couple, whether woman and woman or man and man, certain rights — for instance, the right to visit a partner at a hospital (I am told that right often is denied homosexuals), as well as the rights to enter into a health policy, to insurance and to inheritance.

There are all sorts of rights and obligations that couples want to share but cannot. But with the simple expedient of a civil contract, they could have them, so why bar people from this? They can live together. Why not help them live stably?

But that is not what the organized gays want. They want to claim that a union that cannot possibly have babies can. They even can raise babies that they have adopted, but they want to claim the usufructs for marriage. It is, on the face of it, a nonsense, but it is a nonsense that is claimed by gays. Why?

Is it just another example of the left's going too far? Is it an example of the extremism of the left that we have seen so many times before, of the left's taking a perfectly good institution and destroying it? Or is there a method to this madness?

Some believe that those wanting marriage extended to homosexuals want it because it is the first step in the effort to deny tax-exempt status to churches and synagogues. First, marriage is extended to homosexuals. Then religious organizations deny homosexuals the right to marry. Then these organizations have their tax-exempt status denied them for denying a right to homosexuals, namely the right to marry.

Thus, while the organized gays are proceeding to demand the "right" to marry pursuant to a larger issue, perhaps we should short-circuit this tricky business. We should privatize marriage. The state merely enforces contracts between two people, a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man. Meanwhile the churches and synagogues extend the sacrament for those who want it. Get the state out of the love and sacrament business. Everyone is happy, no?

Which, come to think of it, introduces another of my deeply held findings. Conservatives have more peaceful solutions for social problems, some of which the liberals just make up.

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is the founder and editor-in-chief of The American Spectator and an adjunct scholar at the Hudson Institute. His new book is "After the Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery." To find out more about R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM



Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
One argument against gay marriage that I'd like to see raised more often - it will increase everyone's healthcare premiums. A lot of homosexuals work for government agencies and private sector companies, that offer health benefits along with a salary. Most healthcare plans only allow you to include a domestic partner on your plan if you're married. A civil union might not be enough to satisfy all plan administrators. Ergo, the push to get these homosexual relationships officially recognized as "marriage" will satisfy the requirement. Once that's done, literally millions of gays will be entering the ranks of the ensured, and if you're the one who has the job with the health plan, you only pay a little bit more to add your partner. Your premium doesn't double, not even close. However, all these newly-insured gays will need healthcare like anyone else, which means the insurance companies will be paying a lot more claims....which means they'll have to raise their rates on everyone to cover the costs. The alternative (which Obama seems to prefer) is them going broke under the increased financial pressure. I'd like to see more people upset about this; the moral aspect or its effects on society are only part of the total picture. I'm against gay marriage in part because I don't want to pay more for my health insurance!
Comment: #1
Posted by: Matt
Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:28 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.
Nov. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Lawrence Kudlow
Lawrence KudlowUpdated 22 Nov 2014
Patrick Buchanan
Pat BuchananUpdated 21 Nov 2014
Linda Chavez
Linda ChavezUpdated 21 Nov 2014

8 Nov 2012 The Election Ö The Election of 2014

12 Jul 2012 The Coming Election and My Life Jacket

18 Aug 2009 Bob Novak