As introduced by my prior post, the Prologue, I take real
issue with the voting majority using the political process and legislative
branch to limit individual freedoms.
Fundamentally, I believe this is what makes me a Conservative more than
a Republican. In short, I believe the
government exists to perform necessary tasks that cannot be efficiently or
effectively carried out by the private sector, to maintain our safety and
freedoms, and otherwise has no place limiting John Q. Citizens right to pursue
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
This view of government underscores my distaste for inviting big brother
to play an oversized role in many areas: Economics, Foreign Policy, etc. However, I find the most offensive example of
the big government problem in the same sex marriage debate. I feel this way not because same-sex marriage,
SSM, impacts the literal size of the government, but because the opposing side
is trying to expand the role of government to legislate their view or morality.
As we discuss the issue, I believe there are two key points that
need to be addressed:
The first point is that we as humans are very slow to
willingly accept changes to our fundamental views (how marriage is
defined). As such many traditionalists
will say that homosexuals can’t wed because marriage has always been between a
man and a woman. Many will cite
historical precedent that because it’s always been it needs to continue to be;
however, I have a very hard time stomaching that centuries of oppression are
grounds for a solid argument. I don’t
understand how this is any different than saying “women don’t deserve equal
rights because for centuries (millennia?) they couldn't vote, own property, and didn't have access to higher education.”
Despite the logical fallacies we all know that many times our nation has
had to overcome hypocrisy of this sort in seeking equal rights for our
citizens. So now, after we've been here
so many times before why is same sex marriage such a challenging national
debate?
This brings us to the second key point; unlike many past
equal rights battles religion plays a key role in the same-sex marriage issue. Embracing civil rights and women’s suffrage at
least had the benefit of the moral high ground.
Their effort was to overcome generations of prejudice, racism, and
oppression, which are all generally viewed as “bad” things. However, religion is generally viewed as a “good”
thing, and this is where it gets messy.
Advocating for same-sex marriage means you’re not just fighting the
inertia of time and tradition, but you’re contesting the will of God, and let’s
face it; working against a dogmatic religious following with the reassurance of
moral certitude is a mountain exponentially more difficult to climb. This religious zeal and “moral high ground” have
provided SSM opponents with a political platform and a resulting voice in law
making they should not have. We cannot
allow gay rights to be ignored because there’s a unique religious enthusiasm to
the opposing view. Doing so is an affront
to the basic civil liberties this government is supposed to uphold.
In the end, this debate will rage on with the same push and
pull of prior equal rights battles; however, the religious element must be kept
in check. We as a country must resist
the temptation to vote for the legislation of our personal morality. We must remember that our nation was founded
on the premise of equal opportunity for all.
It will be hard as we ask detractors to not only overcome a stereotype,
but practice tolerance in the face of what they will view as a sin against
their god. And, in doing so we must put
aside out own political biases and do what’s right for our nation. In the end, I’m not here to tell anyone that they should be
in favor of same-sex marriage, but more-so to advocate for the support of individual
freedoms. Many of us reading this blog
need to acknowledge that we cannot pick and choose when we wish to apply our advocacy
of small government.
This is no time for hypocrisy.
No comments:
Post a Comment