Anyone noticed a spate of conservative pro-gay marriage editorials?

[vi5]

Not an onslaught of them mind you. But David Brooks' editorial today in the NY Times I thought was particularly thoughtful and intriguing. I saw one or two others by usually conservative writers who for the most part I don't agree with and can't stand.

I applaud their intellectual honesty on the issue and hope more people see things this way. WHile I think this is a decisive, wedge issue I think it's one that is not going away and I think it's one that when push comes to shove, and the anti-gay marriage rhetoric is brought to light in black and white terms that most people aren't going to vehemently object to the idea.

[bryant69]

1. Jonah Goldberg had a good article on it

Mostly political, talking about how the issue is kind of a landmine for both parties. But he also said that Civil Unions were the way to go. "Though a great many conservatives disagree, civil unions strike me as the right balance between principle and tolerance. Marriage has a specific meaning: a union of a man and a woman. But the state shouldn't bar gays or anyone else from naming heirs or sharing property as they see fit."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20031121.shtml

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[vi5]

2. That's the thing.....marriage shouldn't be political....

Even male-female marriage. Someone pointed out on this board that the state shouldn't have anything to do with marriage to begin with. All unions of legality should be civil unions. Then marriage is up to the church.

[SharonAnn]

3. That's the way it is in many countries, "Christian" ones

Friend of mine married in Italy and had to marry in a civil ceremony in order for the marriage to be legal in Italy and to have the legal rights/responsibilities of marriage.

We just returned from a niece's wedding in Chile and she had to be married in a civil ceremony in order for the marriage to be legal and to have the legal rights/responsibilities.

In both cases, these civil ceremonies were followed in a day or two with religious ceremonies and lavish receptions since the married people considered the religious ceremony to be the significant one.

It's interesting, though, that the state considered only the civil ceremony to be the binding one.

[BootinUp]

4. Wow, that was a neat article...something drives him

on this issue and its not politics, its personal experience, maybe some friend or relative perhaps.