Grassroots Commentary

Perhaps Gay Marriage Is an Economic Issue, Mr. Barron

By B.P. Terpstra · Jan. 14, 2011
“This election was not a mandate for the Republican Party, nor was it a mandate to act on any social issue, nor should it be interpreted as a political blank check.” – Open letter signed by Christopher Barron

I’m going to open with a politically-incorrect question: How can civilizations divorce social realities from economic issues? After all, Republicans in Congress are being urged by Christopher Barron and his supporters “to avoid social issues [code for "gay marriage” and abortion] and focus instead on issues of economic freedom and individual liberty.“

Yet, marriage is an economic issue. Aborting useless eaters is a freedom issue. And if Christopher Barron’s tribal GOProud, a self-proclaimed conservative group for homosexuals, transgendered people, and their allies doesn’t believe me, he is welcome to borrow my copy of Guilty, by Ann Coulter.

Let’s be frank: like their Founding Fathers, millions of praying Americans care about social issues. In 2008, even Obama and Biden were defending traditional marriage (or pretending to) and running away from their abortion records for a reason. What’s more, conservatives came out (no pun intended) in force last November and took back the House, in order to bring a little conservative social justice back to Washington. The sad part: Barron should have seen the writing on the wall.

Perhaps friendship circles reinforce denial, however. In September, 2010, the marriage issue toppled another RINO with deep pockets for a reason. But elites couldn’t see why New Hampshire’s gay marriage-friendly Bill Binnie finished a distant third in the US Senate GOP Primary. Even his heavy money bags couldn’t save him. Or as the erudite Oxford graduate and President of the National Organization for Marriage, Brian S. Brown said, "A Republican who supports gay marriage has taken a career ending position.”

Perhaps “gay marriage” is seen as compassionate-y. “Some establishment Republicans in Washington who spend their time talking to each other at cocktail parties have themselves convinced that it’s ‘cool’ and ‘popular’ to support gay marriage,” Brown explained. “But rank and file Republicans have delivered the message loud and clear: don’t mess with marriage. There is not a single Republican in the nation who has been elected by advocating a pro-gay marriage position. Yet the electoral landscape is littered with the political corpses of Republicans who attempted to do so. Bill Binnie is just the latest example.”

Perhaps some Californian Republicans are too liberal and therefore out of touch with Middle America too. I’m no churchgoing Christian, but believe me when I say Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Christians, and Evangelicals have many allies – even more than America’s five gay marriage-loving transgendered Republican voters.

As well, we see that in the 31 states where same-sex marriage was put to the people, the people threw it out every time (even in California thanks largely to God-fearing blacks). Thus, many African-Americans don’t associate middle-class gays with victimhood, but moreover, campaigning journalists bent on creating more fatherless families to fill overcrowded jails, don’t need enablers.

Perhaps the ladies on The View (singular) and Barron fail to grasp the importance of biology. Or as Stuart Schneiderman who has practiced psychoanalytic psychotherapy (without being brainwashed) states: “To become real, a marriage requires the possibility of conception. It does not require conception. Failure to conceive has never been grounds for nullification. Older, presumably infertile, couples are allowed to marry because if they had performed the same act in the past they might have conceived a child.”

Perhaps this social issue is all about liberty: “Not to be too dramatic, but what happens to us when we are forced to accept that reality is what we say it is? What happens to us when we believe that we can change reality by controlling what people say and how they think? All of a sudden, this does not feel quite so harmless.”

Who, in all truth, believes that written and unwritten Orwellian speech codes encourage people to question taxpayer-funded social experiments? Outside a toxic politically-correct culture, I mean.

Perhaps Barron is a sweet man who adopted the left’s redefinitions of “mandate,” “marriage,” “transgendered,” and “social issue.” Regardless, his actions invite the question: Why can’t a conservative American voter who treasures life and pro-traditional marriage issues expect his or her voice to be heard in Washington?

Perhaps too Barron doesn’t see how conservatism is good for children. Even when rich same-sex male couples use a woman to breed they’re robbing an innocent baby of mother-and-child bonding experiences, not to mention breast milk (or important psychobiological benefits). So is this the kind of union that needs to be (a) blessed and/or (b) ignored?

Perhaps I should also send Barron a copy of Godless, by Coulter. In the end, though, it’s hard to see the freedom in all of this.

B.P. Terpstra is an Australian writer and blogger. His works can be found on The Daily Caller (Washington D.C.), NewsReal Blog (Los Angeles), Quadrant (Sydney), and On Line Opinion (Brisbane).

Appeal_patriots_day_3
5 Comments

Bill said:

Sorry dude. Total barf.

Friday, January 14, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Chuck Anziulewicz said:

DEAR MR. TERPSTRA:Two questions.1: How is allowing Gay couples to marry going to harm the marriages of Straight couples?2: What Constitutional argument can you offer for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted?Procreation and parenting are irrelevant, since (1) couples do not have to marry to have children, and (2) the ability or even desire to have children is not a prerequisite for getting a marriage license. Religious beliefs are irrelevant to this debate, because (1) the United States is not theocracy, and (2) churches will continue to be free to conduct or deny ceremonies to whomever they want. The quest for marriage equality by Gay couples has absolutely nothing to do with Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples. Nothing is changing for them. Nothing is happening to “traditional marriage.” Most people are Straight, and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that will change by allowing Gay couples to do the same. This is really not any sort of a “sea change” for marriage, since the only difference between Gay and Straight couples is the gender of the two persons in the relationship.

Friday, January 14, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Ben-Peter said:

To Chuck (great name by the way):1: “How is allowing Gay couples to marry going to harm the marriages of Straight couples?”It isn’t just about straight couples. Still, “gay marriage” (an Orwellian term adopted by socialists) harms taxpaying straight couples because fatherlessness harms taxpayers, period. We don’t create low-tax societies by creating more fatherless communities. Read Guilty by Ann Coulter. It’s no coincidence that socialist Europeans were the first to embrace “gay marriage.” There’s also a reason why the West’s jails are filled with fatherless young men. Moreover, it hurts gay couples opposed to "gay marriage" because they pay taxes too. 2: “What Constitutional argument can you offer for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted?”I just jumped in my time machine to ask the Founding Fathers - but they laughed in my face. In any case, why do Gay Elites (and their enablers) tell marketers they belong to a rich demographic and a huge market, while crying poor in public when the marriage issue is raised. And speaking of which, what Constitutional argument can elites offer me for silencing American Christians? In any case, the above question is based on a myth. I’ll let Adam Kolasinski explain: “Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.” In other words….more pressures on taxpayers.

Friday, January 14, 2011 at 4:36 PM

Beth said:

When will good-hearted and well-intentioned conservatives stop trying to use government to confirm their social ideas? Allowing gays to marry violates no one's rights. This is why I left the Republican party. On principle, they are no different from Democrats. Democrats want to push their agendas upon everyone else using government to nudge others and provide incentives for what they think is good. Republicans do the same thing in principle when they want to keep marriage defined as it is with favors coming from government to incentivise people to have strong families.Can I opt out of having my tax money confiscated to go towards married people? Where in Constitution does government get this authority? Even if it is for society's own good? Why did the Founding Fathers not define marriage and give favors to those that married? Were they missing something?No, the Founding Fathers knew that government had NO place in marriage. It is a shame we have changed that.Now marriage is a political weapon and no one will end up winning this debate until we get government OUT of defining, regulating, and giving favors for marriage.I understand it is hard for some social conservatives to see their inconsistency dispassionately, but it is a must if they want to be true to their principles.No one is saying it is bad to encourage marriage and that marriage does do good for society. But no where does government have legitimate authority to enforce good things upon society. That is the price of living in freedom.

Thursday, September 15, 2011 at 1:09 PM

nunya bizness said:

Wow. This article is strictly opinions, as i was looking for facts. I disagreed with most of it and you seem like a pretty heartless person. You know what would be funny? If your mother had an abortion. FETUSES ARE PEOPLE TOO!

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 7:46 PM