As I noted in a previous post, today, President Obama stated that he is in favor of full marriage for gays while firmly stating that he plans on doing nothing about it as states routinely vote against extending marriage to same-sex couples. As I state regularly, I am a conservative libertarian. But I am against states legalizing gay marriage. Let me explain the case against liberty.
President Obama explained that he is a strong supporter of GLBT rights (and who doesn't love a good GLBT, hold the mayo, slightly toasted, no crust, brown mustard, really brings out the Gouda). So what happens as the logical extension of marriage to same sex couples? If we allow gay marriage, do we then have to allow bisexuals, whose defining quality as a group is an inability to decide who they want to screw (unless of course it's both simultaneously) to marry one of each gender? How about polygamy, which in many societies was both a form of slavery of women and institutionalized incest and child abuse?
This is not a slippery slope argument. This is the experience of countries that have had to deal with the arguments which stem from the state sponsored approval of gay marriage. Canada has faced challenges on its ban on polygamy with arguments based on its approval of gay marriage. If being married is a right, what happens when you can't force your pastor to marry you? Can you sue him? A biracial couple has already done so in Louisiana. There are roughly 20 states that do not ban bestiality. Some people claim their religion includes pairing up with animals as spouses. Are they being discriminated against?
The easy answer for people is that we have to recognize gays' rights to marry. The hard answer is that the truth is there is no right to marry. The examples I've noted above may seem of the slippery slope genre, but how about something a little more grounded in normalcy. In Louisiana you cannot marry your adopted child, ever. Woody Allen anyone? States disagree as to which degree of cousin a person can marry. States regulate marriage, it is not a right and never has been. The church can deny you be married under their sanction and force you to go to another church. You cannot force a church to marry you. The only right involved in marriage is the right to assembly. You may freely cohabitate as you wish, but do not expect the state to place the color of authority on your union unless it chooses to do so (i.e. Texas recognizes common law marriage, Louisiana does not). Marriage is a matter of public policy to be determined at the local level. The Defense of Marriage Act was an ill conceived move by social conservatives and I believe it was unconstitutional. Similarly, any federal legislation granting a right of marriage is inappropriate. I'm not a big fan of the states stepping in on regulation of marriage, outside of some general safety concerns, and I think it should be a matter for the churches. I also think that legislation shouldn't prevent gay couples from having access in hospitals or otherwise. But there are consequences to all state actions, especially those that presume to create rights.
Rights are those things inherent within us, within our very being. They do not require others to exercise and government doesn't need to pretend to create new ones (which are invariably rights to products), it needs to protect us from infringement upon those that exist. Modern society cries to government for redress and "rights" that are thinly disguised privileges granted by government that take from one person and give to another.
Please address all complaints to the comments below. I'm told that's hard to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment