Why I am not a libertarian; Gay Marriage
The blogosphere, and much of the media, is alive with debate over gay marriage. Liberals and libertarians of various stripes are outraged over President Bush’s support for a constitutional amendment to keep marriage between a man and women, while conservatives are heartened that he is on their side on this one. Some refuse to vote for Bush others admire his courage while still others insist the war on terrorism is too important to change leaders now.
For my part, I think this is a good example of why I am a conservative and not a libertarian. (Please pardon the large generalities that follow) Conservatives believe that freedom must be balanced with order and justice to form the good society while libertarian focus on consensual freedom absent direct harm. Conservatives view society as an organic and often fragile creation while libertarians focus on society as a rational construct that can be melded as we sit fit. Conservatives are reluctant to disrupt the social balance and fabric for fear of unintended consequences while libertarians seem to have faith that a rational utilitarian process can be used to solve almost any problem.
This is manifest in the issue of gay marriage. Liberals and libertarians see individual freedom as the issue and nothing else matters really. The traditional definition and conception of marriage is just another roadblock that prevents consenting adults from living their lives. The state should just stay out of it. If churches want to make marriage sacred they should be allowed to do so but the state should be neutral on the issue and allow gays to be married and reap the benefits just like any other couple.
Conservatives understand that this is a revolution. This is a fundamental change in our social fabric and they wont stand by as legal battles force the issue past a point of resolution. Andrew Sullivan can spin his sophisms all he wants but his rhetoric makes clear his position. He wants a revolution and he wants it now. Oh sure he wishes it could happen in a more democratic way but when push comes to shove he will take it any way he can get it. His emotions and rhetoric are so over the top he has become almost a caricature of himself. Ranting and raving against Bush as if the President has declared war on gay people. When he isn’t bashing Bush he is comparing San Fransisco with Selma and the march on Washington. He declares that marriage is a fundamental right and then declares that discrimination against gays is the fundamental civil rights issue of our time.
The farcical nature of this debate is the blinders the proponents have on. They are manufacturing a fundamental right and imposing it on the nation. It wasn’t very long ago that no one even envisioned gay marriage let alone saw it as a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution. Sure there were moves to give gay couples some sort of package of benefits akin to married couples but not the all out assertion that marriage is a right that can’t be denied to gay people. In fact a great many people are comfortable working out a system of benefits for committed couples but the legal revolution being pushed rejects even this major step. As Massachusetts has shown, nothing but a fundamental change in the definition of marriage will suffice. We must have the revolution!
I for one am glad that the President has joined the fight and I think a large chunk of the electorate is behind him. We will have to see what the future holds for the amendment, but conservatives will not sit idly by an watch the social fabric being rearranged. Revolutions are often clarifying moments for conservatives and I don’t think this one will be any different.
No Responses to “Why I am not a libertarian; Gay Marriage”
Comments
Read below or add a comment...
Got something to say? Say it ...
-
Flickr Photos
More Photos Stats
While GB is pushing his views on married onto the American population, and giving married people tons of benefits while excluding everyone else, many who make a choice to wait, are feeling let down.
you are a complete jackass
Bottom Line – It’s discriminatory and outright homophobic to prevent gays from being allowed to marry. This issue (when it’s resolved years down the road and gays are legally allowed to marry)will stand next to the embarassing times when women weren’t allowed to vote. Outrageous back then and still outrageous now. Old white men ruling the world makes me sick.
“It wasn’t very long ago that no one even envisioned gay marriage let alone saw it as a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution.”
Actually many people have thought about it like that for ages – since the 1970s. Back then it was only individual couples fighting for their rights, so nobody really gave a shit, least of all politicans. Then in the mid-nineties organizations starting joining the fight and only recently has the media made it into a big deal, pressuring governments to form their own opinions. It’s funny how the media can make us suddenly aware of human rights issues, isn’t it?
Yes it does challenge our social values but take a look into any social sciences textbook – it’ll tell you that’s how society evolves. It’s that simple. I’d go on but I’d be here all day…
I second the “you are an idiot” sentiment. Please punch yourself in the face.
Aside from my views on Gay marriage being right or wrong I think it is a BAD idea to make an amendment stating that marriage is an institution between men and women only.
The reason is precedence.
What makes us think that our filthy judicial system will continue to ignore our constitution? They have done so with our right to free speech, our right to bear arms, and most recently our right to due process (thanks to the Patriot Act). This just provides our judges on the local and federal level another amendment they can piss on and ignore.
If a person does not agree with the issue of gay marriage the solution is to demand that the judges uphold the laws of the states. If the law is wrong it should be changed, but by a vote not by a judge who thinks he or she knows what is best for the American people.
JJ and JC display just how mature and responsible this debate is going to be.
It was the activists in Massachusetts who started this, not the President.
That’s as much maturity as a pitiful excuse for an adult such as yourself deserves.
Conservatives are stabbing themselves in the back with an attempt to federally define marriage. They’d be far better served by an amendment to define the limits of judicial power.
A note from the VCWC (Vast Center Wing Conspiracy — we are so secret even the conspiracy nuts don’t know we exist):
Your amendment won’t pass unless a miracle occurs.
If it that miracle occurs, your children will pass another amendment to reverse yours.
Meanwhile, the activist courts will be issuing all sorts of opinions you don’t like and will want to make more amendments about. Go after the courts, not their opinions.
We centrists won’t support you on a marriage amendment but we might well support you on a judicial power amendment.
i thought there was a time when conservatives were against government intrusion in people’s lives and for smaller federal government in general. i’m trying to figure out exactly when that stopped. am i confusing conservative with libertarian? isn’t there some kind of big overlap in the conservative/libertarian venn diagram? telling someone who they can and can’t marry is an intrusion and is placing standards from one community onto another. there really isn’t one national social fabric in this country. i live in sf and our fabric is pretty gay.
there are lots of people who identify as both gay and married; many states have domestic partner laws on the books already. so really, this isn’t a revolution, it’s the next logical step forward.
Careful how you paint Conservatives, Kevin. Not all see it the same.
This proposed amendment will go into the dustbin along with the flag-burning amendment. Seemingly popular and obviously political, but not actually happening.
Thanks, Kevin, for quite succinctly explaining the differences (albeit in general terms) between conservatives and libertarians and using the gay marriage issue as a lens through which to view those differences. I’ve considered myself a libertarian since I was 16. Now, pushing 40, I find myself not so quick to support all cries for individual rights in a knee jerk fashion. I think what the proponents of gay marriage just don’t get (or don’t care about) is that such a revolutionary change in the law of the land will bring about a lot of unintended consequences. Is it is possible that today’s liberal and libertarian proponents of gay marriage will find themselves quite conservative or reactionary on some causally related issue in the future. I’d bet on it.
Not all libertarians advocate gay marriage either:
http://www.libertarianunderground.com/editorial.php?id_msg=4747