A Rational Defense of Gay Marriage from a Conservative Point of View
To my fellow Conservatives, I know many of you are sick of being called bigoted-homophobes because you are against legalizing gay marriage in the United States. I’d like to take some time to argue with you on a higher plane as to why from a Small Government Conservative point of view legalized gay marriage is the rational choice.
As Conservatives we can usually agree on what the purpose of government is, namely the defense of the people and their property. Usually we agree that the smaller said government is, the better. When it comes to the federal government most of us envision a world where pretty much all said government does is help create the infrastructure to allow us the freedom to live as we so desire. As part of the creation of said infrastructure we have designed a legal structure for the implementation of contracts.
Thus we come to the first point. A valid action for government is to provide a forum for the registration and enforcement of contracts between willing adults. Marriage, for legal purposes, is a contract entered into by willing partners. As such, legally, it is no different than an incorporation, or bill of sale. Since a small government concerns itself with protecting those who enter into contracts, from those who would breach said contracts, this would be part of protecting the people. Limiting what kind of contract a person can enter into, when there is no clear harm to either party, is not a function of protecting the people.
This brings us to point number two, many conservatives are sure that gay marriage does clearly harm other people, especially any potential children who may be adopted, or naturally born to one or the other members of the gay couple. This brings us to another bedrock of conservative thought, equal treatment before the law. In this country we will allow almost any male/female couple to wed regardless of possible harm to possible children. We do not ban murderers, drug users, addicts, rapists, child molesters, felons, and the extremely unpleasant to wed. Since anyone in any of these categories could be of danger to any potential children, we are looking at a violation of the idea of equal treatment under the law. Why should we allow the potential for harm from gay couples to ban them from contracting a marriage, but not allow the potential for harm from murders to ban them from contracting a marriage? Also, when did conservatives become so interested in protecting people don’t necessarily, and will not necessarily, exist? We aren’t exactly known for our pro-active positions on the protection of those who do not currently exist in any other cases.
Many of us conservatives are strong believers in the concept of states rights. Many of us are familiar with the idea that states would be able to make different ideas legal, and then see what happens. Part of the idea of having a federal system is so we could do this. Would not a re-writing of the current legal structures that make anyone married in any state, married in all states, and then allowing each state to decide, be more in keeping with our view of how the government is supposed to work, than a blanket federal law?
“But marriage between man and a woman is the bedrock of our society.” It may indeed be. But I do not see marriage between man and woman falling apart because homosexual couples are allowed to wed. (If anything is likely to endanger the coupling of men and women it would be our current worship of the idea that all life should be easy at all times, satisfying at all times, and if anything ever stops working perfectly for a second it can be disposed of.) Men and women have been forming couples since before the idea of contracts existed. I doubt they’ll stop anytime soon. And, from the conservative point of view, when did we decide it was the job of the government to enforce societal norms. Don’t we usually believe that is best left to the individual, his conscious, his faith, and his community?
God says homosexuality is wrong. Yes, He does. It takes quite a bit of training and advanced degrees to come up with the ability to read Leviticus and not see that. But once again, we’re Conservatives, we are usually against having the Government enforce religion upon us. Many of us come from people who came to this country to get away from enforced religion. And, as Jews/Christians, don’t we believe that it is our job to cherish the sinner, and help him back to the path of righteousness ourselves? Not have Big Brother do it for us. Jesus does not say, “Go forth, and make laws, so that you don’t personally have to interact with the undesirable to show them the light.”
Lastly comes the argument that goes something like this, “Well, yes, I agree with you, in theory, about all that small government stuff, but our society is so messed up, we can’t afford it.” If we as Conservatives stop standing for limited government because it’s convenient, we’re going to end up where we are, facing a huge intrusive morass of federal tentacles snaking their way into every aspect of our life. If we aren’t consistent in our values, we will be overcome by those who are.
As Conservatives we can usually agree on what the purpose of government is, namely the defense of the people and their property. Usually we agree that the smaller said government is, the better. When it comes to the federal government most of us envision a world where pretty much all said government does is help create the infrastructure to allow us the freedom to live as we so desire. As part of the creation of said infrastructure we have designed a legal structure for the implementation of contracts.
Thus we come to the first point. A valid action for government is to provide a forum for the registration and enforcement of contracts between willing adults. Marriage, for legal purposes, is a contract entered into by willing partners. As such, legally, it is no different than an incorporation, or bill of sale. Since a small government concerns itself with protecting those who enter into contracts, from those who would breach said contracts, this would be part of protecting the people. Limiting what kind of contract a person can enter into, when there is no clear harm to either party, is not a function of protecting the people.
This brings us to point number two, many conservatives are sure that gay marriage does clearly harm other people, especially any potential children who may be adopted, or naturally born to one or the other members of the gay couple. This brings us to another bedrock of conservative thought, equal treatment before the law. In this country we will allow almost any male/female couple to wed regardless of possible harm to possible children. We do not ban murderers, drug users, addicts, rapists, child molesters, felons, and the extremely unpleasant to wed. Since anyone in any of these categories could be of danger to any potential children, we are looking at a violation of the idea of equal treatment under the law. Why should we allow the potential for harm from gay couples to ban them from contracting a marriage, but not allow the potential for harm from murders to ban them from contracting a marriage? Also, when did conservatives become so interested in protecting people don’t necessarily, and will not necessarily, exist? We aren’t exactly known for our pro-active positions on the protection of those who do not currently exist in any other cases.
Many of us conservatives are strong believers in the concept of states rights. Many of us are familiar with the idea that states would be able to make different ideas legal, and then see what happens. Part of the idea of having a federal system is so we could do this. Would not a re-writing of the current legal structures that make anyone married in any state, married in all states, and then allowing each state to decide, be more in keeping with our view of how the government is supposed to work, than a blanket federal law?
“But marriage between man and a woman is the bedrock of our society.” It may indeed be. But I do not see marriage between man and woman falling apart because homosexual couples are allowed to wed. (If anything is likely to endanger the coupling of men and women it would be our current worship of the idea that all life should be easy at all times, satisfying at all times, and if anything ever stops working perfectly for a second it can be disposed of.) Men and women have been forming couples since before the idea of contracts existed. I doubt they’ll stop anytime soon. And, from the conservative point of view, when did we decide it was the job of the government to enforce societal norms. Don’t we usually believe that is best left to the individual, his conscious, his faith, and his community?
God says homosexuality is wrong. Yes, He does. It takes quite a bit of training and advanced degrees to come up with the ability to read Leviticus and not see that. But once again, we’re Conservatives, we are usually against having the Government enforce religion upon us. Many of us come from people who came to this country to get away from enforced religion. And, as Jews/Christians, don’t we believe that it is our job to cherish the sinner, and help him back to the path of righteousness ourselves? Not have Big Brother do it for us. Jesus does not say, “Go forth, and make laws, so that you don’t personally have to interact with the undesirable to show them the light.”
Lastly comes the argument that goes something like this, “Well, yes, I agree with you, in theory, about all that small government stuff, but our society is so messed up, we can’t afford it.” If we as Conservatives stop standing for limited government because it’s convenient, we’re going to end up where we are, facing a huge intrusive morass of federal tentacles snaking their way into every aspect of our life. If we aren’t consistent in our values, we will be overcome by those who are.