The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

21 November 2013

10:56 AM

21 November 2013

10:56 AM

Perhaps there is something mildly tawdry about discussing an issue such as gay marriage in terms of its impact on perceptions of the Tory party or the extent to which it helps the Tory evolutionary project. It is, after all, a rather larger, better issue than that. A Conservative who only supported equal marriage for these tactical reasons would be a poor and shilpit thing indeed.

Yesterday the Scottish parliament, catching up with Westminster, debated gay marriage. The best speech was that given by Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Tories. It shows her – and her party – at their best and is well worth six minutes of your time.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • Andrea Loquenzi Holzer
  • Dee Landerman

    Gay marriage is ludicrous on several levels. Although it is designed by God, putting any religious aspects aside – just focus on the intended purpose:
    1. Marriage was decreed for procreation.
    2. Marriage is a safeguard for a virgin, making sexual intimacy with her husband acceptable. Without marriage she would be considered a whore or harlot.
    3. Marriage was to protect her in pregnancy and insure support from her husband for herself and children.
    Within that framework of reasons– how does marriage apply to gay couples? It’s
    Inconceivable. (play on words)

    Physically,marriage is a uniting of two opposite parts, specifically made to fasten together into one working unit – otherwise it’s considered, odd, strange or

    In electrical and mechanical trades and manufacturing, each half of a pair of mating connectors or fasteners is conventionally assigned the designation male or female. The “female” connector is generally a receptacle that receives and holds the “male” connector.
    Even though today’s amoral society will frown on the fundamental reason for

    marriage, it doesn’t apply to homosexual relationships.
    Gay marriage is just plain idiotic, and so are the judges that past laws to allow

  • skadhithjassisdottir

    And this is why I’m not a conservative – its just backward looking sentimentality about dysfunctional institutions. Queers (and feminists) used to hate marriage. That the left have stopped trying to undermine something they despised proves it now suits their ends.

    Ages before gay marriage was first taken seriously by even the left, the institution was successfully subverted so as to disadvantage traditional males (especially dads). Not surprisingly then the attacks on marriage stopped when it began to work against the right.

    Let the gays have marriage, cause it belonged to the left already. Unless the state grants advantages to those married to as to encourage procreation within stable homes, marriage is simply legal and socially irrelevant. I don’t see anything to fret about there. Its quite absurd to take it seriously.

  • ziggyman911

    I cannot even begin to understand at all how blatantly foolish this women is. If u can change the definition of one word then no words are sound. I dislike to use the word of GOD at all the reason no one would take a pearl and cast it in the swine pit where the pigs lay but facts lay before me when a group miss guided people and representatives have but one agenda to destroy GODS LAW and bring the world to a open shame. Lets change the word thief to directly mean politician. Now the two in comparison in my eyes are the same but one means straight an right that is the word directly. The other a person who steals what does not belong to them. politician One might think to serve the public who voted for them the majority not so at all the worse meaning has come true a person who acts in manipulative and devious way typically to gain advancement within there party or self cause. the servant of self, Marriage belongs to one man and one women given by GOD a gift of his HOLY NATURE no matter what u change u will still be standing on a full-face lie the bible has warned us of what to expect in the last days. This will not bring u freedom but face to face with TRUTH

  • allymax bruce

    Our Christian ethics, morals, and culture, is being eroded, but Ruth Davidson wants to use the Scottish Parliament to say she doesn’t feel ‘equal’ because she can’t call herself married. There’s something wrong when posuers bemoan their ‘preference’ of sexual relations, when children & families are starving in this country; when the unemployed are being ‘sanctioned’ (meagre £70p/w benefits stolen from the unemployed), openly by millionaire Tories like Iain Duncan-Smith’s evil despotic policies that degrade ‘British’ unemployed, because they can’t get a job; because immigrant migrants are degenerating the pay for the jobs that are available!
    Dontcha just luv the Tories! The one thing that will push the massive middle class back to Labour is Iain Duncan-Smith’s evil policies on the unemployed. But, it’s all going to be ok, because Ruth Davidson can call herself married! Nothing much changes in the Tory party!

  • Vitaly Klitschko

    The contraceptive pill was instrumental in changing the secular definition of marriage from procreation to that of “love”; a subjective and semantically meaningless term. Kinsey, a well known sexual pervert, helped engineer this change by introducing the concept of sexual fulfillment, which of course emphasizes solipsism at the expense of a social contract. The permissive revolution is an instrument of destruction not creation.

  • Daniel Maris

    “Their love is something different, is something less…” Yes – that’s exactly what you (Massie and co.) are telling the billions of people around the planet who believe in polygamous marriage… you get all high faluting when it comes to gays getting married, but when you come up against something you find culturally strange, suddenly all the guff about personal choice gets forgotten. You are telling all the polygamists their love is “something different, something less”. Of course I am glad you are telling them that but…

    I think there’s a word for this…it’s called hypocrisy.

    Those of us who support marriage as a rational institution designed to provide a solid framework for procreation and child development don’t require any Disneyfied lectures on morality thanks v. much.

    I fully accept that marriage will evolve – it cannot do anything but – however, we need to anchor marriage firmly to procreation and child development. We need to oppose any conception of marriage as “personal fulfilment” and we need to put up strong barriers against polygamy (a sure way to psychological damage for children).

    • Neil Cameron

      Marriage has never been anchored to procreation.

      Procreation has historically (but not exclusively) been anchored to marriage.

      Marriage has always been anchored to the public acknowledgement and acceptance of a committed loving bond between two people. Procreation, if it happens at all, comes later. The marriage is not for procreation, but procreation can be facilitated through marriage.

      As to the polygamists: good luck with their fight. Their fight is not the fight that the gays are fighting. The gays are seeking the right for gay couples to marry. Monogamous gay couples do not need to fight for polygamous marriages any more than Zoologists need to fight for the teaching of Carpentry.

      • Vitaly Klitschko

        Homosexual marriage is designed to destroy the nuclear family. It is one tool of many – another is “free love”, which was introduced in Hungary long before the contraceptive pill. Destruction of the family is a guiding principle of cultural Marxism, which considers that defined gender roles violate democratic socialism. And it is not merely the family, but all forms of traditional morality which must be annihilated, especially the power of the church and the concept of sexual sin.

        • allymax bruce

          Correct; and the Marxists you talk of, Bliar etc, are doing the diluting dirty-work the Zionists tell them to. The Zionist-Marxist ‘end-game’ is de-establish all the moral ethical and cultural strands that binds Christian society together. Bliar, & Labour, have effected, (and will continue to), the most destructive, deleterious, & degeneration of ‘Britains’ Christian society in their terrible 13 years of government. Bliar’s ‘sofa-government’ is so-called because he had to keep hidden the fact his policies were constructed by his political masters, his Zionist masters from a foreign country! Labour has done more damage to our Christian culture, morals, ethics, laws and society, that 6000 years of history couldn’t manage to do! And all at the behest of his Zionist masters! But! Notice how the Zionists don’t allow ‘Gay Marriage’, ‘civil partnerships’, or Equality; Jerusalem Mayor is openly, and proudly racist against Christians; pronouncing Jerusalem/Israel to be a purely Jewish country! Israel has illegally demolished a Christian church, ‘occupied’ foreign countries lands, (Golan Heights in Syria, & Palestine territories), and he boasts of how Christians are being murdered all throughout the Middle-East!
          Bliar, and Labour are to blame.

        • Neil Cameron

          No, homosexual marriage is designed to legally bind two people of the same gender. That is all.
          If you want to read conspiracy theory drivel into it then go ahead, but you might need a tin foil hat to go with the lunacy.
          Just because Marxism existed and had something to say on homosexuality does not mean that all homosexuality is linked to Marxism.
          Mugabe is a staunch, dedicated and unapologetic Marxist, yet he detests homosexuals more than most heads of state.

          I am not particularly interested in the desires of the Marxists. Marxism was a European invention from the dying days of imperial domination.
          If you feel threatened by Marxism, you are threatened by ghosts.
          If you feel threatened by two people getting married, despite your not wanting them to, then you are being unnecessarily delicate.

          You are simply looking for ways to convince yourself that the gays are out to get you.
          Wake up. Look in the mirror. Would we want to get THAT?

      • Mike P.

        So just to clear, you support group marriage (polygamy)?

        • Neil Cameron

          I do not have one, so I do not need to defend it.
          I do not seek one, so I do not need to campaign for one.
          If there are people who do seek one and seek legal recognition of it, my opinion of it is irrelevant. Their union does not affect or impact me in the least. It is not my union or my cup of tea.

          • Mike P.

            So that’s a ‘yes.’ Good to know.

  • Baron

    Alex, enough of gayness, the 2.7% minority gets too much of the media attention, how about finding a topic that’s relevant to the heterosexual majority?

    • Neil Cameron

      If equality was not so long overdue, then the gay issues would not dominate as much as they have. The longer an issue is left unresolved the longer it will take to resolve it.
      The issues around gay marriage are connected to hundreds of years of legislative history, they are complicated and they are very very deeply ingrained in society. This is not something that can be resolved over a quick chat in chambers between sessions. This is something which has to be dealt with thoroughly to ensure that the whole of the legislative weave is not undermined.

      Your bleat is no more than saying “I am sick of this, you are not focusing on my issues, shut up about the gays and look at me”.
      Try to consider that gays have not had their issues looked at appropriately and thoroughly at all. The gays have had to fight to overcome their omission from every aspect of civil law, marriage law being the final hurdle to overcome. Gay rights have been overlooked and ignored for centuries simply because there have always been “more important issues” to resolve.
      Should the gays wait another thousand years of dealing with “more important issues” before their issues get resolved? or are we going to resolve them now, get it sorted and allow all of society to move forward without the burden of unresolved issues hindering our progress?

      The minority must be addressed, or else the issues of the 2.7% (your claim not mine) will continue to build up to the point that they actually destabilize society completely.
      Yes it is an inconvenience, but it must be addressed. Lancing the boil is far more preferable than amputating a gangrenous limb.

  • Wessex Man

    perhaps, just perhaps you could find something to write about which is worth commenting on, like just maybe, the ever expanding Co-op Bank Scandel!

  • Gweedo

    I can’t understand why more Tories don’t recognize David Cameron’s support for gay marriage as an ideological master stroke. Ever since the 1920s, Marxists including Gramschi have promoted homosexuality as a ruse to undermine the nuclear family – which is the smallest and most robust institution in bourgeois society. But now the Tories’ support for gay marriage will simply extend the franchise of the nuclear family, potentially creating hundreds of thousands of new naturally Conservative voters. By supporting gay rights, Tories can offer an effective response to the Left’s grand plan of destroying individual identity as a prelude to world socialism. At the same time they will be correcting an injustice to thousands of gay people and promoting individual liberty. What’s not to like?

    • Baron

      Before we come to ‘what’s not to like’, let’s first establish that you were awake and facing in the right direction.

      • Gweedo

        I refer you to Ed West’s timely item in the Spectator today: “How much of homophobia is just generic macho stupidity?”. Cheers!

    • Daniel Maris

      What tosh. The family existed long before the bourgeoisie became the dominant class in society (around 1800).

      My view is that the “traditional” family is much more the “natural” family i.e. humans do pair bond with others of roughly their own age and raise their own children around them.

      Practices such as polygamy and parentally directed unions are unnatural practices and should have no place in our society.

      • Gweedo

        Daniel, I didn’t claim that the family didn’t exist before bourgeois society. Whether it is ‘natural’ or not is arguable. All I’m saying is that capitalism changed the social purpose of the family from being a divinely-approved contract into the engine of the consumer society (a positive development in my view). This is why religious critiques of gay marriage belong to the pre-industrial era, and hence also why Vitaly is just a religious fruitcake.

    • Vitaly Klitschko

      This is either disingenuous or naive. The target is (very obviously) defined gender roles in parenting. Alternatives to heterosexual marriage only serve to undermine the institution, as well as marginalizing Christian morality. The Church of England will either be disestablished or lose any vestige of such morality.

  • JohannesHibernicus

    “[Gay marriage] is, after all, a rather larger, better issue than that.” Yes it’s nothing less than a cultural revolution aimed at destroying the last vestiges of a sane and healthy sexual ethics and promoting sexual anarchy. Pity the Conservatives, or at least their leaders, can’t see this.

  • Theuniondivvie

    ‘It shows her – and her party – at their best and is well worth six minutes of your time.’

    Eh? Agree her speech was one of the best, but SCons voting 8 to 6 against isn’t imo doing much for perceptions of the Tory party, except in the ‘we can encompass dissent even if is bigoted, old toss’ sense.

  • llamassayobey

    Its sad when so called conservatives seek to appease the left. Conservatives as a rule gemerally stand for marriage in its traditional form and form families. Our culture is as Robert Bork put it “slouching toward Gomorrah”. This isn’t about hating homosexuals or the denial of rights its the upholding of an institution that has existed since time immemorial, an institution that has been battered by heterosexuals but that won’t be improved by gay marriage.

    • llamassayobey


    • Tom M

      Quite agree. I listened to this speech and heard all the usual things that sound like “yes I know I can have all the legal rights of a marriage in a civil partnership but mu life is ruined beca

  • MichtyMe

    Well, well, how things change, as a youth, many decades ago, I knew what a Conservative was but had never heard of a lesbian and if the young Michty had been told, that in the future, the leader of the Tories, would be a woman and a lesbian he would have been utterly unbelieving.

    • Daniel Maris

      Yes but if you had been told a leader of the Tories had been b****** at public school by the head of house you wouldn’t have been surprised at all, would you?