My first post on Free Dominion

I owe a debt to Andrew Sullivan and I acknolwedge lifting the core argument from one his own excellent posts (which can be found at andrewsullivan.com). I'll also post some of the commentary I recieved so you can see for yourself the kind of nuanced conservative thinking we have here in Canada.

*******************
Shouldn't Gay Marriage be the Conservative position?

I sympathize with those who are concerned that 'Equal Marriage' represents a threat to principled conservatism and traditional marriage, but I find it all to be very misguided.

If we consider 'Family' to be a core conservative value (and I do), doesn't allowing gays and lesbians to form legal stable families represent a 'win' for conservative principles?

Endorsing equal marriage would also give the gay community, especially the gay male community, an alternative paradigm to counter the reckless hedonism that fringe elements embody. Shouldn't we be embracing these more conseravtive elements of the gay and lesbian community, and welcoming them in their acceptance of a conseravtive lifestyle?

My endorsement of Equal Marriage shouldn't be seen as a threat to 'traditional marriage'. A 'traditonal marriage' can only happen within a 'tradition', and it is assumed that while these traditions may be radically different in origin, ceremony, etc., they can all fall under the same general category 'traditional marriage' in that they are exclusive to themselves - a traditional Sikh wedding is not the same as a traditional Mormon wedding - but they both represent a 'traditional marriage'.

In contrast to these marriages within a 'tradition', you have the secular ceremonies, etc. that the state, military, and other bodies are designated the ability to perform - this is the run-of-the-mill basic 'Marriage', and it is the only kind of marriage would she allow the Liberal government to enforce as being the legal definition. These events are not in any way 'traditional marriages', rather, they are recognition of those relationships that occur outside of any tradition.

My point here is that whereas there is clearly something 'special' about 'traditional marriages' they best way to delineate this more intense special traditional bond is to add the appropriate modifier to 'marriage' - not to attempt to cling to the word 'Marriage' when it is already insuffucient on its face to carry the special meaning desired.

'Traditional Christian Marriage' or 'Covenant Marriage' would far better describe the richness of the tradition into which those people have agreed to be wed, and also distinguish it from the neutral and colourless 'Marriage' that the state makes available.

When Brittany Spears can go to Vegas and get 'Married' in what amounts to a publicity stunt, the word 'Marriage' has evaporated any meaning that someone married in the 'Traditional Christian Marriage' would want the word to have.

These 'Traditional Marriages', of every religious stripe, would still be available within those respective 'traditions' or faiths - and by defintion a 'traditional marriage' in this sense isn't available to anyone outside of that tradition - so if Catholics don't wish to include gays and lesbians in the definition of 'Catholic Marriage' that is something left up to the Catholics to decide.

I will lastly argue that endorsing 'Equal Marriage' would not only be the sensible position philosophically for principled conserativism to make, but one that can be of immediate political benefit to the party. By re-framing the Equal Marriage debate as one that is in-keeping with traditional conserative principles, while also explicitly defending and protecting the rights of churches to define their own 'traditions' of marriage, we can defuse the smear that conservative principles reflect scarey bigotted, or intolerant positions on the equality of gays.