The Saga of the Alabama GOP and Gay Marraige

American Taliban?

When the Supreme Court ruled on the Defense of Marriage act (more or less rejecting it--allowing Federal recognition of gay marriage) Stephanie Petelos, chairman of the College Republican Federation of Alabama, supported the ruling. This resulted in a move by others in the group to try to kick her out by adopting a position that any member of the Federation had to abide by the party platform (which is explicit against same-sex marriage).

This move came after (reportedly) she submitted to a spoken-word agreement to stop speaking out in favor of gay marriage in her official capacity--but then went to an actual "purge" attempt when she refused to sign a paper (smart. Her mom is a judge, apparently).

The move to kick her out failed. When it came down to a vote, despite the committee re-affirming the anti-gay position, they decided to let her stay in even though she's spoken her mind:

“We're not the Taliban. We're not the Third Reich,” executive committee member Clay Barclay of Mobile said. 

When you find yourself having to disclaim association with the Taliban or the Nazis it can be assumed that events have gone a bit too far. Here are some of the comments from the Daily Caller's article on the purge attempt itself--Like this one from 'randal':

Only freaks support freakish behavior, so I say purge away.

or 'beckdella'

We will grow....only not in the evils of the world...we still beilve God is on the throne and God says homosexuality is an ABOMINATION!!!!! So no, thanks but we have much more sense than to support a losing cause and since homos can't reproduce that will be their demise.

And 'DMS' in the thread where the GOP backs down:

GOD NEVER HAS AND NEVER WILL MAKE A GAY, LESBIAN, OR A TRANSGENDER PERSON. OR A BEASTIALITY PERSON, PEDOPHILE PERSON, ETC. IT'S ALL A CHOICE. I'VE READ THAT MEDICAL SCIENCE SAY YOU WERE BORN THIS WAY ( BS ). WHAT IF MEDICAL SCIENCE TOLD EACH AND EVERY WOMAN THAT WANTS TO GIVE BIRTH TO THEIR CHILD,WE ( THE MEDICAL PROFESSION ) CAN GIVE YOU A SHOT THAT'S ( 99% ) SURE YOUR CHILD WILL NOT BE GAY OR LESBIAN, ETC. HOW MANY DO YOU THINK WOULD HAVE IT DONE. REMEMBER IT'S A ( CHOICE )

WHARRGARBL

Should The GOP Have Embraced Civil Unions in the Early 2000's
The ranting is (kinda) funny--but there's a serious question buried under the fury: given the way the tide has turned should the GOP have headed off the gay marriage issue by endorsing Civil Unions around 2003 or so? The thinking is that if the GOP had done that they would have made it harder for gay people to get actual marriage as a "separate-but-equal" category would exist.

If this were the case should they be doing the same thing now? Endorsing more moderate opinions that go against their grain in order to get in front of a coming shift in national opinion?

The Case For Proactive Embracing of Civil Unions
The case for doing this is two-fold: (A) apparently gays-with-civil-unions do not emit the same degree of marriage-harming radiation waves that married gays do. The same goes for general societal destruction and (B) Civil Unions will take away the 'bloody flag' of otherwise upstanding degenerate perverts who garner public sympathy by being denied the rights to see their sodomite lovers who are dying in the hospital.

The lack of this bad-decision (the decision to be gay of course) based 'tragedy' will make it a harder sell to the non-gay non-liberal public.

The Case Against Surrender
The case against surrender, of course, is straightforward: Gays want to destroy America and will stop at nothing. Accommodating them is like accommodating Hitler--but like a gay bestiality Hitler, or something:

The reality is that same-sex “marriage” is just another step in the process to erase the boundaries of what constitutes marriage and family. The ultimate goal is the eradication of conservative moral beliefs and the creation of a social and legal climate that promotes homosexuality as normal behavior. (Read more HERE.) Redefining marriage in order to accommodate the unjustifiable demands of a tiny but politically powerful group will ultimately prove too costly.

There's also the case that, of course, if you give gays an inch they will take a mile. For example, armed with the DOMA decision, they will force God-fearing flower-vendors to sell flowers to their sham-marriages. It's also possible that what gay people actually want is for-real social acceptance of their unions--meaning marriage and not some kind of newly developed contract. That's possible too.

Which Is Right?
In this case the facts are pretty straightforward: what is happening with gay marriage is a faster-than-ever-seen-before shift in the way young people view gays and gay marriage. It's happening amongst the young and it's not clear what, exactly, the drivers are (social media? Hollywood and TV's portrayal of gays as alright? More gays coming out so they're more visible? Backlash against bullying in general? Decaying moral fabric of the universe?).

This is combined with a general fall-off in traditional religiosity that is tracking similarly among the young. Without the moral opposition to gay marriage there's no simple argument against it (there is the polygamy argument--but (a) that's harder to launch than most people imagine--it's hard to keep from stepping in the bestiality or pedophilia pit-traps that surround it) and (b) it's an unsavory slippery-slope argument that takes a certain degree of good-will to prop up well ("Are you really worried about polygamy? Or is that just what you're saying because you think it'll hold up under the consent-argument but you'd really rather compare gay-marriage to man-dog-unions? I thought so.").

I think that ultimately even a separate-but-equal position would be eroded by whatever is driving the change in behavior. The gay integration of the military was probably likely to happen under Obama at some point no matter what was done with civil unions and after a generation of gays serving openly I doubt any real resistance would be left anyway.