As you have probably figured out by now, I certainly take a conservative angle on just about everything. I actually like to believe it is not so much a function of being conservative, but in my bed-rock belief that I want as little government oversight and involvement in my life as possible. The government has very few responsibilities which I believe are completely encompassed in the first line of the Constitution:
- Establish Justice
- Insure Domestic Tranquility
- Provide for the Common Defense
- Promote the General Welfare
- Secure the Blessing of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity
I could easily expound on each one and the government certainly does each one of these…but the tendency has been to increasingly do more, spend more, and overstep the bounds which these five principles outline.
Now while this may surprise you, Richard Cohen, an opinion columnist at the WP wrote this article today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113003158.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Yes, you read it right, I’m forwarding a gay-rights article…but go back to my first assertion, my conservativeness comes from my belief in government having as small a role as possible. Just like the article said, the government now has no right to intervene against the marriage of a racial couple, how then by the same logic can a government discriminate on gender preference?
Is this discrimination based on a religious opinion? Okay, but what about the separation of church and state?
Is it based on the Christian foundation of this country? Fine, I can support that too, but not every Christian has a problem with someone being gay. Remember the gay Episcopalian female priests that were in the news? Were they bad people doing bad things? No, they probably do more for the community than most of us. They were simply controversial. Why then do some people care what others do behind closed doors? Does it really affect their life? Are they a burden on you or society. No? Then what gives anyone the right to interfere in a deeply private and personal matter and essentially make a subset of Americans a second-class citizen which does not have the right to a civil union like the rest of us?
Is this country founded on hating someone because they have a different opinion than you or hating them because they are different than you? Or is this country founded as a free nation where we are a melting pot and we can come together despite our difference, making our culture that much stronger?
I know there are a lot of rhetorical questions here, but I am trying to make you think and identify some bias.
Like Cohen, I want to keep my government out of my bedroom, gay or straight. Citizens of this great nation are going to be gay. Nature or nurture, that is the way they are. How is it fair to deny them the same legal and financial benefits? Especially when that above list for the five roles of government all can be impinged by gays being denied their rights. I don’t want my rights to a civil union be denied, how is it okay then for me to discriminate and say ‘but those people are gay, they don’t count’. Sounds hypocritical to me.
I propose a compromise. Being religious myself, I do believe that the word ‘marriage’ is a technical religious term that is solely a union between a man and a woman. Thus, I do not like the term ‘gay marriage’. It confuses the legal with the spiritual. Make gay UNIONS legal – giving them the same rights as a marriage, but have the various gay rights groups work together to make a new term. I don’t care if it’s a conference or a contest, but give gay couples their own term that removes the religious connotation.
I think that is more than fair, and that is what my argument boils down to. Supporting ‘gay marriage’ is not an attack on the religious right or conservative values. It is what promotes personal freedom and keeps the government out of my life. That is the foundation for my argument - my libertarian ideals. If I preach about it when it comes to my guns or my taxes, it is only fair and makes sense that my belief extends to other issues that I do not have a stake in but are just as valid an argument for liberty.
-G.S.
No comments:
Post a Comment