The Conservative Party is constitutionally, fiscally and socially conservative. That means we hold dear the traditional Judeo-Christian family values that our Founders embraced. Those values made America the greatest nation on earth. Unlike the Republican Party, however, CP-USA actually remains steadfast in our support of those founding principles and beliefs.
The concept of traditional marriage is being assaulted on many fronts in America today. Liberals, Democrats, the media and a growing number of Republicans now want to redefine marriage to include people of the same sex. That is morally, socially and historically wrong. And that is why CP-USA is now forced to publically defend traditional marriage.
The concepts outlined below do not mean that Conservatives “hate” gays/lesbians or that we want to discriminate against them in civilian life. It just means we do not approve of that lifestyle and don’t want to give gay/lesbian unions parity with normal, traditional marriage. It also means Conservatives want the right to retain our traditional values without being forced to accept something we know to be wrong. That does not mean we are bigots or homophobes.
Conservatives must not be afraid to openly express our traditional values. We must not cower or remain silent or stay in the shadows or grow tired because that’s exactly what liberals want. Don’t be afraid to give a full-throated defense of traditional marriage. Remember, the Left never sleeps.
The concepts and talking points outlined below are designed to provide Conservatives with some basic, rational defenses for the idea that “Marriage is between one man and one woman.” These Points/Counter Points allow us to articulate against gay marriage (defend traditional marriage) with reason, logic and confidence. No hysteria is needed if you rely on sound arguments to make your case.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Point: Gays and Lesbians should be allowed to marry because they “love” each other.
Counter: If gays/lesbians are given the right to marry just because of “love”, then society must logically also allow a man to marry two women (Polygamy) if all three love each other. We must then allow a man to marry his sister (Incest) if they both take medical steps to preclude her pregnancy to eliminate in-breeding (since that’s one of the key arguments against it). It would also mean society would have to allow a teenager to marry a 40 year old adult since both can “love” each other or allow a father to wed his adult daughter if she “loves” him. The list of such potential perversions is long.
Americans have established specific marriage standards beyond just “being in love” for practical, ethical and moral considerations. We must retain those standards if we hope to remain a functional and moral society. Redefining marriage to allow gay/lesbian marriage just because “they love each other” eliminates any logical impediment to other types of unions (like Polygamy, Incest or teen-marriage) that society normally deems to be unhealthy or immoral or unwise.
Point: Allowing Gays/Lesbians to marry enhances family values and does not harm traditional marriage.
Counter: Allowing gays/lesbians to marry gives legitimacy to a deviant sexual lifestyle. The desire to have same sex is a psychosomatic defect. It’s abnormal just like suffering from Kleptomania or Pyromania or Pedophilia or other similar disorders. Making gay marriage “legal” elevates that deviant lifestyle to the same level as legitimate normal marriage. Legalizing gay marriage would also enshrine the fallacy that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.
These obvious points render the argument that traditional marriage is not affected by gays to be irrelevant. The key premise for denying such marriage is that being gay/lesbian is a sexual abnormality that should not be officially condoned. Its affect on traditional marriage is of no consequence (irrelevant).
In addition, making society understand that the gay/lesbian lifestyle is abnormal places the Burden of Proof on them rather than on normal society. Gays/lesbians must try to convince the rest of society that they should be allowed to redefine marriage. And they have failed to do so. The media and Democrats are forcing normal society to be on the defensive by making us explain why we want to “deny gays the right to marry”. In reality they need to convince us, not the other way around. The tail should not wag the dog.
Conservatives should not be afraid to use the word “normal” because that defines traditional hetero-sexual marriage. You must also not be afraid to use “abnormal” or “deviant” just because gay marriage is being pushed by the media or popular in some polls. You should not be cowed by threats of being attacked by the media.
Conservatives should not use the word “unnatural”, however, because Mother Nature sometimes creates people who engage in abnormal or deviant behavior (“born that way”). That is “natural” by definition. But it does not mean society should accommodate them.
Point: Gay/lesbian people are “born that way” and don’t have a choice in how they feel about sex.
Counter: Debating whether or not people are born gay/lesbian is beside the point and has no value. Even if they are “born that way” it does not change the fundamental fact that it’s deviant and abnormal behavior. CDC studies prove such lifestyles increase incidents of STD’s, HIV/AIDS, Cancer and lowers life expectancy.
Kleptomaniacs are born that way but it’s still against the law to steal. No one chooses to be a Pyromaniac but it’s still against the law to set fire to buildings. And no one chooses to be gay/lesbian. They are all born that way. So what? Don’t get entangled in the old “nature vs. nurture” argument that goes nowhere.
Since Americans have no intention of legalizing theft or wrongfully setting fires, America should not approve gay marriage just to satisfy a small but vocal interest group or because they were “born that way”.
It is not illegal to have thoughts or urges like a Kleptomaniac or Pyromaniac or Pedophile. But it is illegal to act on those urges. It’s not illegal for gays/lesbians to have the urge to get married. But it’s illegal for them to act on those urges in most states and it should remain so.
Point: Gay marriage should be allowed because it does not affect other people.
Counter: That is a seriously flawed argument. That’s like saying people living in City A are not affected by Polygamy in City B. That’s like saying people living in City C are not affected by Incest or pre-teen marriage in City D. Just because life in one city or neighborhood is not directly affected by crime or deviant behavior in another city does not mean we should condone or legalize it.
That principle holds for gay marriage: something is either right for society or it’s wrong. Allowing gay marriage is wrong because it’s a deviant lifestyle and the status of being “married” crosses state lines and can happen in all neighborhoods. It’s either right or wrong for the whole society. That means people can’t use the invalid argument that something should be allowed/legal just because it doesn’t affect others directly. It’s a false premise from a legal, logical and moral standpoint.
Point: Government should “stay out of the bedroom” because marriage is really a religious institution.
Counter: They can’t have it both ways. If they want government to “stay out of marriage”, then don’t ask City Hall for a marriage license or get a blood test from a state-certified lab or demand state/federal tax marriage benefits or file for health benefits as a couple. Just ask their church to perform the wedding ceremony and ride off into the sunset. Also, don’t seek legal remedies in state/local courts to settle any future divorce claims; just ask the priest or rabbi to settle the issue.
And don’t ask SCOTUS to get involved in reversing state laws like Proposition 8 in California. The government didn’t initiate Prop 8; it was initiated and voted on by the people of California. And the majority of them rejected gay marriage. But the government (SCOTUS) is now being asked to rule on the issue by some of the very people who want “government out of the bedroom.” Again, they can’t have it both ways.
In America marriage is a both a civil AND religious enterprise because that’s how our society decided to sanction this important institution. And that official sanction has deemed marriage as between one man and one woman. That’s why states have a range of civil laws on marriage (as approved by the people) which has been true since America’s founding. It also means government and society have a vested interest in marriage to some limited extent because Americans want enforceable civil rules to protect the children and account for property. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if there were actually no government involvement.
People can’t just redefine traditional marriage to suit their social and political agenda. The traditional family is the cornerstone of Western Civilization and gay marriage, polygamy and incest helps destroy it. In the known history of mankind, every major religion has defined marriage as the union of men and women.
Point: The question of gay marriage should be left to individual states.
Counter: Yes, that is a reasonable and constitutionally defensible solution whatever your position is on the subject. The 10th Amendment provides an elegant solution to this thorny problem so let the people decide. However, no state should be forced to recognize the status of same-sex couples married in other states and no federal tax or other benefits should be granted to same-sex couples. DOMA should be upheld and enforced.
While allowing states to decide this issue is not the most ideal solution for some Conservatives (because some states will allow gay marriage), it is the solution and process outlined in the Constitution. Conservatives support the Constitution and understand that no group always gets everything it wants in a Constitutional democracy.
Point: Recent legal opinions and changing polls prove that gay marriage should be accepted.
Counter: It is an injustice for judges to overturn the will of the people who determined that gay marriage and traditional marriage are not equals. California voters, for example, rejected gay marriage twice. If citizens are not allowed to decide such issues then the entire principle of voting on state Propositions or Referendums is rendered null and void. Judges must not overturn the will of voters just because recent polls indicate a possible shift in opinion. If using polls to decide key issues was valid then legislators could simply cite them to enact laws or judges could simply make laws from the Bench without regard for voters. This approach undermines the central tenet of what it means to be a Democracy.
Liberals and the media often selectively cite polls to support their case to allow gay marriage. However, they totally ignored – and continue to ignore – those same polls when they forced ObamaCare on the electorate in 2010.
Point: It’s unconstitutional to deny gay marriage because it’s a “Civil Right” granted by the 14th Amendment.
Counter: The 14th Amendment was originally enacted to ensure that states did not deny equal rights and protections to Black slaves who were freed under the 13th Amendment. Although the Supreme Court expanded the reach of the Equal Protection Clause to protect disadvantaged groups like women, other minorities and illegitimate children, SCOTUS never gave gays/lesbians the “right” to marry. Of course that is exactly what the opponents of Prop 8 and DOMA are trying to argue at SCOTUS. Don’t be fooled.
The only people whose civil rights are being violated are the voters of CA (and other states) who voted against gay marriage but are being reversed by activist judges. The right to vote and have the majority vote count is more fundamental (Constitutional) to Democracy that the changing definitions of marriage.
Conservatives can rightfully argue that gay marriage should be struck down because it’s a perverted and deviant lifestyle no matter how many liberal lawyers try to spin the issue in court.
Point: Since interracial marriage is now allowed, gay marriage should also be permitted.
Counter: This is an invalid and silly argument because there is nothing abnormal or deviant about being born to a specific race. That’s why there are no viable legal restrictions on marriage based on race in America. But engaging in a gay/lesbian lifestyle is deviant behavior that must not be legally sanctioned.
Point: Won’t the children of gay/lesbian couples be harmed if their parents can’t marry?
Counter: A number of states have allowed gay/lesbian couples to adopt children for the past 20 years despite the fact they were not married (or could not get married). And such couples have willingly and enthusiastically taken advantage of the situation despite that restriction. That meant both the state/private adoption agencies AND gay/lesbian couples did not think children would be harmed. That’s why such adoptions were allowed in the first place.
Since none of the interested parties previously claimed any harm to children due to the unmarried status of gay couples, they can’t make any claims of harm to children now. This counter point does not argue that children will benefit from having a gay/lesbian families, it just argues that such couples can’t use the “harm” claim to make the case that they must now be allowed to marry. Modern social science generally supports the idea that children benefit more by having one married mother and one father.
Point: People who oppose gay marriage are bigots and homophobes and should be ignored.
Counter: Bill and Hillary Clinton (and other high-profile Democrats) openly opposed gay marriage until 2013. President Clinton signed DOMA into law in 1996 with a large majority of support in Congress. Barack Obama often said he opposed gay marriage when he was a State Senator, a U.S. Senator, a candidate and as President. He reversed himself during the 2012 election year for obvious political reasons.
Despite the fact that those high-profile liberal Democrats spoke publically against gay marriage, the media and gay activists never called them – or considered them to be – bigots and homophobes. As a matter of fact, liberals, media and gays held the Clintons in the highest regard despite their public opposition to gay marriage and support of DOMA all those years. The gay lobby voted for most of the Democrats who supported DOMA. And they overwhelmingly voted for Obama in 2008 despite his opposition.
That obviously means the gay/lesbian lobby has lost the moral and logical high-ground to call anyone who now opposes gay marriage a bigot or homophobe.
