What I said About Gay Marriage Post Election 2008 when I Was Still a Republican
From my 11/15/2008 post election article:
First a challenge to the social conservatives — you made the most ground in recent history when you became pro-life and pro-family, however in that genesis you did swallow a poison pill that creates a paradox with two firm party values. When pro family morphed into anti-gay, you lost the vision and swallowed the fear. When pro-life morphed into anti-science, you also drank the draught that poisoned your vision.
Like it or not, gays are going to exist, they have for all of history. Like it or not, gays are going to have children, they have have for all of history. For years social conservatives have sent the message that a two parent family is the best for children, but for some reason with gays they are against that vision. It needs to be solved, are children of gay parents somehow less important or valued than the children of heterosexual families? Should the liberty to marry the one you love really stop at being gay? Right now you are comforted in taking this anti stance because of demographics that show weak support for gay marriage, but longer term those demographics will change. What is now is not what will always be, and by this posture you destroy your future.
Among those under 30, gay marriage is not an issue of import, any more that inter-racial marriage was an issue of import for the young generation before that. Society did not collapse once mixed-race marriages became unremarkable, and neither will it if gay marriage moves to non-remarkability. Only 1-2 percent of the population is gay depending on whose stats you look at, and that’s remained static for most of history. The fear of gay marriage is unreasoned, and counterproductive in many ways.
With the anti-gay pill swallowed and not spit out, the party will continue to shrink. So the challenge is clear: how do you stay pro-family without being anti-gay? Will you let fundamentalist minorities within the social conservatives poison your good goal and purpose of united families with married parents, or will you move forward with the positive vision that a two parent married family is best for children, regardless of their parent’s sexual orientation?
I was horribly wrong in my projections for the House in this post, mostly because I failed to look at the sheer number of seats up for grabs from Democrats during a barely recovering economy. I was entirely right about the longer term effects of the demographic trends pointed out, and those will take effect more strongly over the next decade.