Posted by
WRH Bill (aka Mr. Bill) on Wednesday, December 03, 2008 7:28:28 PM
I found it interesting that on the recent issue of the Eharmony dating service being legally coerced to provide services to homosexuals, Jacob Sullum-- Townhall's main representative of freewheeling secular libertarianism-- came out on the same side as the "Religious Right". He doesn't think that Eharmony, a private business, should be forced to match gay couples if it doesn't choose to engage in that business.
anti-gay
I wonder if this might point the way towards a solution to the growing conflict between social/religious conservatives and more secular, limited-government, free-market oriented conservatives-- a conflict which threatens to tear the cosnervative movement apart. Perhaps the social/religious conservatives should give up some of their dreams of remolding America into a more "moral, religious" nation by means of politics and governmental force, and instead rejoin what Grover Norquist calls the "leave us alone coalitiion".
For my part, I don't think that gay marriage is an awful thing (I voted against an anti-gay-marriage referendum in my state). But I don't think that preaching against homosexuality should be criminalized as "hate speech," or that churches should be forced to perform gay religious weddings or ordain gays. (I don't think being gay is immoral or "sinful", but I do think it's somewhat dysfunctional, which by some standards makes me a raving "homophobe" right along with you religious conservatives.)
I'm not in favor of banning all abortions; I can't accept the idea that a fertilized egg a few hours old is the exact equivalent of a born human infant. But I can oppose using tax money to perform or promote abortions; I don't blame you for not wanting your taxes spent on a practice you abhor. I can also support efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade, because I think it's bad constitutional law and the abortion issue ought to be decided by voters and elected reresentatives in the states.
I think creationism and "intelligent design" are religion falsely masquerading as science, and I don't want them in the public schools. But I support your right to have private religious schools that teach creationism and even to divert a portion of your tax money to support them. (Even though I think you are doing your children a disservice.)
Is there any chance of a peace treaty between religious conservatives and non-religious limited-government conservatives, on such "leave us alone" terms?