Thank you for visiting Ohio.com. We noticed you are using an outdated browser that may not give you the best user experience. We recommend current browser versions of Google’s Chrome, Microsoft’s Edge, Mozilla’s Firefox. For more specific information on how to update your browser --Click Here or visit your browser’s website.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" - Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America
The Preamble states the reasons we establish government. Most of those reasons boil down to one overriding reason - in the American tradition, government exists primarily to secure our liberties. We have a military to "provide for the common defence" in order to secure our collective liberty. We have police departments to "insure domestic tranquiity" in order to protect both our collective and individual liberty. We "establish Justice" through our court system to protect liberty.
This being the case, protecting liberty is what informs my political philosophy above all else, wherever that shall lead. When the government wants to infringe on the liberty of Americans, there better be a very compelling reason for it to do so. The primary reason for curtailing liberty is, ironically, to protect liberty, which usually manifests itself as keeping people safe from each other. For example, there are laws against drunk driving because the drunk driver could crash his car into someone else, depriving that person of his/her liberty. There are laws against murder, rape, armed robbery etc. for the same reason. Those crimes deny someone else their life, their liberty, and their pursuit of happiness. A short rule of thumb is, one person's liberty ends at the next person's nose. You should be free to do what you desire, provided that it doesn't trample on the rights of others.
In securing our individual liberties, it should go without saying that the government cannot use the law to discriminate against ANY American citizen for any reason whatsoever. The law must apply to all citizens equally, or else it isn't "establish[ing] justice" at all, it is establishing injustice. When the law discriminates against people, it isn't "secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty", it is securing the shackles of tyranny.
In another irony, people who call themselves "liberals" are the people most likely to promote government discrimination. Liberals promote the most discriminatory tax laws, discriminatory affirmative action laws, discriminatory pro-union laws, the discriminatory ObamaCare law (some people have to pay a premium for health insurance while others get is for free). There are many other examples. Big government liberals respresent the antithesis of liberty in so many ways. That's why I oppose them on several issues. Maybe that's also why they started calling themselves "progressives" instead.
But it isn't always liberals who promote government discrimination. Sometimes it's the "this is how we've always done things" conservatives too, and that brings me to today's topic - gay marriage. You've probably figured out by now that I support gay marriage under the non-discriminatory law, but I'm still going to present the case of young conservatives against gay marriage. I always like to hear the opinions of my pollitical opponents before I reject them. Here's what some young conservatives say is their objection to gay marriage:
...the case for what proponents call traditional marriage — is simple, they say.
“In redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, what you’re doing is you’re excluding the norm of sexual complementarity,” said Mr. Anderson, the Heritage Foundation fellow. “Once you exclude that norm, the three other norms — which are monogamy, sexual exclusivity and permanency — become optional as well.”
The result, proponents of traditional marriage say, would be further rises in divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births.
There's a phrase I haven't heard before - "the norm of sexual complementarity". I'm not certain what it means or how it is relevant, but those definitely are words, and I recognize them as such. My guess is that it refers to a "Tab A goes into Slot B" kinda thing, but why that has anything to do with "monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanency", I have no idea. And maybe the young conservative hasn't heard, but those normal folks engaging in the norm of sexual complementarity have a divorce rate of 50%. Perhaps some force other than gay people is working against monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanency.
And do I even need to dignify the contention that gay marriage will result in more out-of-wedlock births ? Duh !!! Not possible. See: Tab A goes into slot B. Not in gay marriages, it doesn't...at least not in the babymaking slot, thus NO BABY.
The young conservatives continue:
“When you de-link marriage from childbearing, you then have to increase the complexity of that relationship,” said Caitlin Seery, 25, the director of programs for the Love and Fidelity Network, which works with college groups to advocate traditional marriage.
I don't know if this point is valid or not, but it's immaterial. If we're going to be against things because they contain complexity, we'd be against things like physics and mathematics. Silly. Next point, please:
“Most young people think if you come out with traditional marriage views, you’re a bigot,” said Thomas Peters, 27, the communications director for the National Organization for Marriage. “You can’t have that many people in the shadows.”
This is a false argument. Heck, I'm FOR traditional marriage myself. I'm also for gay marriage. Proponents of gay marriage are not against traditional marriage, and they don't try to prevent anyone from engaging in traditional marriage. The discrimination in this case comes solely from the anti-gay marriage folks. I can't see any way in which gay marriage harms traditional marriage.
In the article to which I linked, I didn't see the reason I expected to see articulated by the conservative traditional marriage advocates. At some point, I expected to see the "because the Bible tells me so" contention that homosexuality is wrong, to which I'd reply - even if the Bible represents the word of God (and I'm not interested in having THAT argument here), the Bible was still written by men nearly 2,000 years ago. Those men were fallible, as are all men. We've come a long way, baby. For the most part, people don't CHOOSE whether to be gay or not, and if indeed there was a choice, almost nobody would choose gay in our society. I'm happy to live in a semi-enlightened country thath doesn't execute homosexuals as they did back in the day, and as they still do in some backward cultures today. I'm happy to live in a semi-enlightened culture that accepts people's differences instead of one that discriminates against people who are different....but we still fall short when it comes to gay people.
I pronounce the case against gay marriage to be discriminatory, and therefore...dismissed.