The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
There are many threats to my liberty, but I do not recognize one to be the peaceful cohabitation of two people of the same sex. I realize this may cost me my standing in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, and if it does, perhaps I overestimated the value of my membership.
I have been a Republican for as long as I can remember. Ronald Reagan continues to be one of my personal heroes. But I was never a Republican because of the moral majority or the stuffy mahogany–trimmed clubhouses. I am a Republican because I believe, to my core, that government is at best a necessary evil.
Governments were formed to coordinate our resources so that we could defend against threats larger than the individual or the family. Any government that acts to extend its power beyond that purpose is suspect. We should always look upon government intervention in our personal lives with skepticism, and there is nothing more personal than whom you chose to spend your life with.
There are many threats to my liberty, but I do not recognize one to be the peaceful cohabitation of two people of the same sex.
Government has no legitimate purpose in restricting consensual sexual conduct among adults. It may be seen as immoral or sinful for some, but sodomy, homosexuality, adultery (even prostitution) and other forms of non-traditional sex should not be criminalized. I believe that most Americans, while they may not personally condone the behavior, would not seek to criminalize it.
The question then becomes, should the government allow same sex couples to marry. Many people feel that gay marriage is wrong and favor, instead, civil unions. President Obama (at least in public) and Ms. California hold this position, as do a majority of Americans. Mark Twain warned that, when you find yourself in the majority on any issue, it is time to pause and reflect. Over the past several months, I have come to question government’s role in marriage.
Religion
Some oppose gay marriage on religious grounds; on the belief that homosexuality is a sin. I understand their concern, but government cannot make laws on the basis of one, or even all, religion. We cannot ban gay marriage for religious reasons any more than we can ban the sale of pork because Jews and Muslims cannot eat it. Government is not meant to protect our faith anymore than it can protect our chastity, our hope or our innocence.
We are all responsible for our own selves and our own values. Family values are under assault from many sources; television, movies, sexting, the internet. But it is the family that must guard against these attacks, not the government. Reliance on government and avoidance of personal responsibility have never been family values.
Faith is a compass, not a GPS.
This is not to minimize the role of faith or religion in government. All good governments are guided by faith in a higher power. It keeps them humble. But faith is a compass, not a GPS. There is an enormous difference between a leader guided by faith and one legislating it. The American system is designed to allow for peaceful coexistence of differing faiths, including the absence of faith or living in contravention of it.
Threat to Traditional Marriage
Another argument against gay marriage is that it would undermine the sanctity of traditional marriage. I disagree. Marriage is a tradition, a statement, recognized by society, that two people are bespoke for one another. I cannot see how the acknowledgment of a bond between two people can weaken the bond between two other people. There are many threats to traditional marriage. Pornography, divorce, adultery, credit cards, family vacations and the holidays with the in-laws to name a few. Marriage has survived these assaults without government intervention. It will survive the inclusion of same sex partners. Indeed, any value worth protecting can survive the happiness and stability of others, even same sex partners.
Encouraging an Unhealthy Lifestyle
Another argument against gay marriage is that homosexuality is a lifestyle that should not be encouraged or sanctioned. It is true that many homosexuals, especially men, may be more likely to be promiscuous, to contract communicable diseases and to die tragically young. But this is because society has made them outcasts and condemned them to unstable relationships. It is far easier to bend or break the rules once you are already shunned. Put another way, prohibiting otherwise healthy behavior often leads to excessive, unhealthy behavior.
Prohibiting conduct will drive it underground and make it more dangerous, not less.
In the United States, for example, a person under 21 is more likely to be involved in an alcohol-related injury or death than a person over 21. In Europe, where drinking is legal at a younger age, young people are no less safe than adults. Prohibiting conduct will drive it underground and make it more dangerous, not less. Acknowledging homosexual relationships will encourage socially acceptable behavior. It will foster stronger bonds and lead to a better quality of life for everyone.
Moreover, government should never be the arbiter of what is healthy or wise. Many of the same people who oppose gay marriage, oppose (as I do) the nanny state’s attempts to ban trans fats, sugary drinks and gambling. Governments cannot be allowed to dictate our lifestyle choices, otherwise we will create a government that can tell us what to eat, when to exercise, how to dress and where to die.
The Children
The perfect is not the enemy of the good
Some argue that gay marriage will have a negative impact on the children of gay couples. I disagree. Although the healthiest, happiest environment for children is the home of their natural parents; the perfect is not the enemy of the good. If given the choice between a stable home with two loving (same sex) parents or an unstable home with one parent and no or multiple partners, the stable home should always win. Gay marriage will stabilize gay families and lead to healthier, well adjusted children.
Employer Benefits
Some have argued that gay marriage would increase the cost of benefits for employers. If same sex partners can marry, each of their employers would be required to cover the new spouse, increasing the cost of benefits for employers. First, most employers provide same sex benefits today. Second, providing benefits is voluntary and an employer can choose not to (at least for now). Finally, this is also an argument against traditional marriage as this too raises the cost of employer-provided benefits.
The Parade of Horribles
Finally, there is the slippery slope argument. If we allow gay marriage, we will have to allow all other forms of nontraditional marriage, like polygamy, bestiality, and vegiality (okay, I made that one up). First, I never like slippery slope arguments. They presuppose we are not able to draw a line between certain types of behavior. As for marrying animals (or inanimate objects), this is easily dealt with. Marriage is a consensual arrangement. Animals (and toasters) are incapable of legal consent. Line drawn.
As for polygamy, it is true that gay marriage would open the door to polygamy. And perhaps it should. Polygamy is the norm in many modern and historic cultures, none of which have brought about the end of civilization. So long as it is consensual, for all the reasons listed above, there is no reason to ban it. Also, as noted below, marriage is not a right and gay marriage should be instituted by the political, not legal, process. Therefore, any concern over other forms of nontraditional marriage can be addressed there as well.
Moreover, the prospect of complications with polygamy or other forms of nontraditional marriage should not be used to punish same sex couples. We do not ban guns simply because someone might want to buy a howitzer later.
* * *
(My intent is not to make a straw man of the critics of gay marriage. If I have mischaracterized an argument, please let me know, and I will do my best to answer you.) Having addressed the arguments against gay marriage, and with the premise that government should allow (or in this case, acknowledge) any behavior that is peaceful, the only fair conclusion is that gay marriage should be legal. So how should it be achieved?
The Path Ahead
Being gay is no more a choice than being tall is. There is, therefore, a logic in the legal argument that gay couples should be afforded the same rights as traditional couples. Marriage, however, is a social compact, not a right. There are few rights afforded married couples that are denied to gay couples.
Being gay is no more a choice than being tall is.
Same sex couples can copulate, adopt and raise children (though not always together), own property jointly and inherit through probate of a will. Gay couples have, however, been denied access to each other in hospitals, intestate inheritance rights, insurance and other benefit coverage and other benefits. But there are adequate remedies that can address these issues and that allow a court to avoid finding a right to marry. Where a court can avoid finding such a right, it has an obligation to step aside and let the political process function.
I have spoken out against gay marriage being imposed by judicial fiat, and I stand by those statements. The abortion debate over the past thirty-five years is evidence enough of why such a controversial decision cannot be made by judges. The issues of full faith and credit and the portability of marriage can also be addressed through the political process. There is no logical reason that a state that allows for civil unions cannot deem, if it so chooses, an out of state marriage between same sex partners to be a civil union. I sympathize with those who feel it is an injustice and a violation of people’s rights that some states refuse to recognize gay marriage. To them, I counsel patience. To those who disagree with me, I counsel compassion.
Our federal system is designed to promote choice. If you live in a state that fundamentally disagrees with your view of the world, you are free to move. If you despise taxes and think personal responsiblity is a virtue, Texas and Alaska have plenty of room. If you think government should attempt to solve all of your problems, California welcomes you.