The gay marriage issue is as good an issue as any to illuminate the difficulty of saying you're a "limited-government conservative" and having it mean anything definite.
Andrew Sullivan, who has been more eloquent than anyone else in making the case for gay marriage, and making it from a libertarian-conservative position. He sees Huckabee, a social and religious conservative who opposes same-sex marriage, as a threat to individual liberty because of that. And that makes sense, from Andrew's perspective.
But consider the perspective of so very many social conservatives who voted in state elections against same-sex marriage. Why are they doing so? That they oppose same-sex marriage, obviously, but the reason the issue even came up for balloting is fear that powerful judges will declare same-sex marriage exists as a constitutional right, and the bedrock social institution of marriage will be transformed without anyone consulting the people. To social conservatives, this poses an unacceptable threat to individual liberty. And that makes sense, from our perspective.
The only prudentially conservative resolution to this issue is democratic: let people vote on same-sex marriage in their states. That way, the policy has the backing of the people who will be affected by it. Pro-SSM folks in more conservative states wouldn't like it. Anti-SSM folks in more liberal states wouldn't like it. But the point is, it will have been a policy democratically arrived at, and not imposed.
But should the question be one of constitutional rights, well, it is irresolvable except in the courts, as Maggie Gallagher detailed in her extremely important piece exploring the clash between religious liberty and civil rights law on the gay marriage issue. The point I'm trying to make here is that both pro-gay marriage folks and those against it have plausible cases to make that what they're trying to resist is government violation of their liberties.
What this whole thing brings to mind is the issue of religion in politics. Those who say that religion has no place in politics are usually saying that they're tired of religious people advocating for policies they don't believe in. To use my favorite example, liberals who despise some Catholic bishops denying communion to pro-choice politicians must, on principle, reject the New Orleans archbishop who excommunicated some segregationist Louisiana Catholic politicians in the 1960s for their attempt to force the Catholic schools to abide by segregationist laws. When most people object to the involvement of religion in politics, you can be sure they don't object to it in principle, only object to a specific religion's involvement in their politics.
Similarly, when people proclaim themselves partisans of limited government, you had better ask which limits they want placed on which governmental policies. That will define the limits of their commitment to limited government, or to be precise, will define which aspects of governance they believe should be limited.
Look, I'm not saying that the claim to favor limited government is entirely meaningless in American politics. I'm only saying that it's a phrase just about every conservative claims to endorse, but which can't possibly mean the same to all factions.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
rebeccat,
"Are you really prepared to argue that the differences between men and women are not real?"
No. We're saying they aren't RELEVANT for gay people. DUH!
"the challenges to inter-racial marriage were premised on the completely erroneous idea that blacks and whites were fundamentally and substantially different. The challenge to same sex marriage is based on a completely true and verifiable reality: that men and women are, in fundamentals and substance different."
HUH??? The "differences" are IRRELEVANT. Gay men are NOT attracted to women, and lesbians aren't attracted to men. Sorta like heterosexual men are NOT attracted to other men, and str8 women aren't attracted to other women. It's all about with whom you bond. Doesn't affectinal bonding between couples COUNT in marriage any more?
"A woman who marries another woman is marrying someone who is quite different in fundamentals and substance than she would be if she were to marry a man."
I, like DavidTC, would like you to explain when, how and why women were required to marry someone who is "different" (apart from their gender). I know a lot of effeminate str8 men. Are str8 women not allowed to marry them should they so choose? Can a str8 man no longer marry a 'butch' woman? ARE you saying a womn "needs" a man? (like a fish needs a bicycle?)
richard,
"I'm curious if anyone here thinks there is such a thing as a right to marriage in the first place. Many people think that gays don't have this right."
No. This thread is about LIBERTIES, as in the 'promise' or 'self-evident truth' that ALL citizens do, indeed, have the right to life, LIBERT and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS". (Whatever happened to THAT argument? Are gay people not allowed that right/liberty?)
Erin,
"Only in the last few decades have the 'enlightened' moderns decided that marriage should have nothing at all to do with the relationship between a man and a woman that tends to have as its common and expected result the production of the biological offspring of the two people involved, who then, as dependents, need to be provided for."
No one is saying it has "NOTHING" to do with M/F relationships. What we are saying is that that is not the ONLY relationship that need be allowed access to the institution of marriage. As for your contention that makin' a baby is the "expected result" I have quite a few heterosexual friends who would be quick to remind you that makin' babies is NOT a requirement of marriage. And never has been.
"Defining marriage in a way that excludes same gender couples no more "denies them legal rights" than denying a straight man the right to call himself the world's only heterosexual gay man and then sue his employer for job discrimination on the grounds that he should be a protected sexual minority would deny him legal rights."
HUH??? If you believe we are not denied any rights, there arre 1,138 of them we'd like to discuss with you.
"what if heterosexual people decide that they have the right to call themselves "gay" and demand special treatment because they are "gay"?"
Except, of course, we aren't asking for special rights. We are asking for EQUAL rights. Too bad you can't seem to tell the difference. At present, it is hetrosexuals who have special rights.
Ther rest of that post of yours was just nonsense.
Erin,
"the rhetoric of "you're denying gay couples the right to marry!" is a ridiculous argument."
No it isn't. It is FACT. It is TRUTH (as in, "You can't handle the truth.")
"Marriage isn't a universal right but a legal contract."
From which gay couples are EXCLUDED. What part of that don't you understand?
"There are conditions attached to it"
Not ONE of which is procreation.
"Take consent, for instance"
Can gay couples not consent to enter into such a contract? You only argue about "the civil rights of someone who believes he ought to be able to marry someone who doesn't consent to the marriage." What of those of us who CAN and WOULD consent to the contrac of marriage?
"If a group of people demanded the right to marry people who don't (or can't legally) consent"
But, of course, not a single person IS demanding that. I'm not even sure where this consent/lack of consent 'argument' comes from. It sure as heck ain't relevant to what we are discussing.
"The same is true when we talk about same-sex marriage. Saying that there is no difference at all between the notion of marriage as it applies to a heterosexual couple and the notion of marriage as it applies to a same-sex couple is to ignore biology, history, and every law concerning marriage from the past to the modern age."
No. It is only to ignore (and rightly so) HETEROSEXUAL biology, history, etc.
"The entire framework of law as it relates to marriage assumes that we are talking about two people of different genders"
Not since January, 2001 (in the legal sense) and not since millenia ago in SOME (admittedly few, but they did - and DO - exist) cultures.,
"as does every cultural reference and historical connotation."
"Every"??? Laff!
"In a post gay-marriage world, words like "husband, wife, mother, father, bride, groom," and so on will have to be completely removed from our vocabulary, because anything less still elevates heterosexual relationships above homosexual ones."
Nonsenese. I have a husband, and every one who knows us knows that he is the one I am married to, just as when you use the word "husband" every one who knows you knows you are referring to the man you are married to. Try a little logic.
"There can be no notion in law or any aspect of public life that it is a preferable or even a good thing for parents to raise their own biological children ..."
For once and for all, please try to get it through your head that PROCREATION IS NOT REQUIRED of married couples. Never has been. And NO ONE is tryin' to take your babies away from you.
"as that, too, will be de-facto discrimination against gay couples who as couples are intrinsically incapable of reproduction."
Such nonsense, considering reproduction is not a requirement. Give it up already.
"If you think I'm being hysterical"
IF?????
"look at those places where gay marriage has already been legalized, and you'll find that I'm merely being accurate."
Erin, I live in one of those places (Canada) and know that you are talking nonsense. Not even CLOSE to "accurate". Nothing of the sort has happened in South Africa either. Or Massachusetts. Or Spain. Etc.
Fear-monger much?
To all,
Sorry for the many posts-in-a-row, but I came late to this thread (cleverly disguised under the title "Liberty and limited government" as opposed to "Should queers be allowed the same rights as betterosexuals to marry?") and there was such a load of horse-puckey to reply to and set, er, straight.
Whatever DID happen to "liberty and justice for ALL", anyway?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.