The Gay Marriage [non-] Debate
My good friend Mike tipped me off to a very well written and well thought-out critique of the standard opposition to gay marriage. The New Republic stands out as a lasting example of genuine thought against the backdrop of media noise.
First, let me give a quick recap of the official Tadfad policy on gay marriage: I agree with social conservatives that the “tradition of marriage” belongs to the Church (whatever church that may be). Furthermore, as a strong proponent of keeping a healthy distance between Church and State, the State shall not step on the Church’s toes in defining “marriage”.
These two principles are simple enough and lead me to the conclusion: Church gets to define marriage however it so chooses (one man & one woman; one man & another man; one woman & one toaster) while State defines “civil unions” as the legal contract between two consenting adults without any discrimination for gender, age, race, or sexual orientation. The civil union contract grants all those great rights and responsibilities we’ve all grown accustomed to. The marriage certificate holds sentimental weight only (since it’s defined by Church and not State). Marriage becomes no different than baptism, bar mitzvah, or first communion–important to the Church; irrelevant to the State.
This position is not widely held (Ron Paul is a noteable exception) and rarely makes it into the public debate. Given these constraints, I am forced to make a concession: since heterosexuals are generally unwilling trade their State-issued marriage licenses for a State-issued civil union license, the civil libertarian in me must therefore demand that we extend the eligibility of State-issued marriage licenses to all consenting adults. Doing otherwise is discrimination laid bare.
With that, here is the article from The New Republic:
This is the One Percent Doctrine of social policy. If you place zero weight upon the preferences of gays, then all you have to do is suggest a possible harm, however remote, associated with gay marriage. The same sensibility was on stark display in a recent National Review editorial. Dismissing the argument that marriage might foster more stable gay relationships, the magazine’s editors replied curtly, “[T]hese do not strike us as important governmental goals.” There’s a word for social policy that disregards the welfare of one class of citizens: discrimination.
Some hard-core conservatives are willing to openly discriminate like this, but most people aren’t, which is why public opinion is warming to gay marriage. Most opposition arises from simple discomfort. When I first started hearing about gay marriage, I didn’t oppose it, but it seemed sort of strange and radical–and only after several years did I realize I supported it.
Go there. Read it. Thanks.
Filed under culture, politics : Comments (2) : Jun 23rd, 2009 by tadfad
June 23rd, 2009 at 18:01
And in related news, Jon & Kate from TLC (the show where they have 8 kids… not the scary show featuring the couple with 18 kids) got divorced today.
June 23rd, 2009 at 20:45
On a more serious note, here is a pretty solid flowchart outlining the gay marriage debate:
http://pfarley.livejournal.com/105081.html