Conservative editorial cartoonist Scott Stantis has changed his position on same-sex marriage. The Chicago Tribune editorial cartoonist ran a cartoon last week depicting Abraham Lincoln holding a rainbow colored flag in response to Illinois state lawmakers approving same-sex marriage for their state. He states that he had always been protective of the sanctity of marriage, but now finds that fighting same-sex marriage is discriminatory and not inline with his Libertarian leanings.
Full disclosure here. Ten years ago I would not have drawn this cartoon. On the contrary, in my editorial cartoons and in my comic strip, Prickly City, I was adamantly opposed to the notion of gay marriage.
Not that I hated my gay friends but that I was being protective of the sanctity of marriage. A cornerstone of western culture for thousands of years. To redefine it so radically took a lot of thinking. Over the decade I did just that. Growing to realize that it was, firstly, discriminatory to deny Americans the right to enter willingly into a civil union allowed to others. Finally, recognizing the moral obligation dictated by my Libertarian leanings that the individual has the right to define his or her relationships in whatever fashion they feel best suits them.
So hurrah for Illinois. Here’s hoping the rest of the United States follows suit and we can confront, together, the daunting issues that challenge us.
I guess that long talk Scott and I had at the Kenosha Festival of Cartooning did the trick! Next up, I’ll have him buying insurance on the Obamacare exchange!
I’ll never understand what gay-marriage does to “the sanctity of marriage” when things like Divorce are more common and easy to achieve.
A cornerstone of western culture for thousands of years? Marriage as we know it today is a pretty recent development, and then there’s the fact that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, so there’s a disconnect in there somewhere, Scott.
What a guy does with his wood in the privacy of his own home is nobodies’ business…
http://news.uk.msn.com/environment-activist-marries-tree
“Finally, recognizing the moral obligation dictated by my Libertarian leanings that the individual has the right to define his or her relationships in whatever fashion they feel best suits them.”
Then I take it, Scott, that putting your Libetarian leanings in play you would also not have a problem now with three individuals who decide a threesome marriage suits them? Or a man and five wives? Or a woman and ten husbands? The only thing that matters is that everyone feels it suits them?
Lincoln would probably be more inclined to back a personhood amendment reclaiming rights for the unborn,
As I mentioned in the original statement, this was not an easy decision. The realization grew in my mind that there are constitutional rights that allow consenting adults to enter into contractual agreements. It is discriminatory to deny this right to specific groups, (like mixed race couples, people of different religions or gays), hence, civil unions. Illinois’ new marriage equality law protects religious institutions from having to perform any service that contradicts the teaching of that particular faith. A good compromise.
Birdie is right, of course. Divorce is much more damaging to marriage than anything else. That is why, on numerous occasions, I have proposed that marriages with children should almost never be allowed to divorce except for instances of abuse. (Marriages without children can divorce with ease. Consider it a really expensive date).
While the argument might be made that this opens a pandora’s box of polygamy and beastiality. This, of course, is absurd. Marriage is and remains between two consenting adults. The history of polygamy is riff with abuse, mostly of very young girls. Even today in the middle east child brides are a norm. Beasteality is unworkable. It is almost impossible to get a sheep to agree to a contract.
The reason government plays any role in marriage is to promote a stable social order by enforcing the marital contract. Past that, I can’t see where it’s any of governments damn business.
And Tom, know that we’ll always have Kenosha……
It amazes me that this is even an issue. I am glad to see you come around Scott. Now I am an even bigger fan than before. Can’t believe I missed out on Kenosha. Maybe next year.
Nice. A change of position on an issue after a thoughtful process while remaining well-aligned with your core values. Scott, you should be commended. Or condemned. Expect both.
@Tom
Scott doesn’t need Obamacare. Unlike all of us self-employed cartoonists, he gets his coverage from his employer.