FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR
The Argument For “Marriage Equality” Is Not A Conservative One
This week the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on same California’s Prop 8 and a section of the Defense of Marriage Act which deals with benefits for same sex couples. Same sex marriage is front and center once again and I’ve heard some interesting arguments on how supporting government involvement in defining marriage is a “conservative” ideal. During the Sunday morning talk show circuit, former Bush communications adviser took the moderate position emerging within the GOP against American Values’ Gary Bauer. Nicole Wallace tried to argue that supporting “marriage equality” is a conservative position. No, it is not.
I’ve never understood how anyone who spent the past four-plus years lamenting the size of government could then argue for its increase by inviting it into the discussion of marriage. We complain about government in health care, we complain about government in education, we complain about government regulating soft drink size, but suddenly some of us have no problem with more government in people’s relationships with one another. Marriage is a covenant between a man, woman, and God before God on His terms. It is a religious civil liberty, not a right granted by government. It should never have been regulated by government in the first place, and government shouldn’t have an expanded reach in further regulating it now. There is no allowance constitutionally that invites our government to define the religious covenant of marriage.
I’ve no issue with same sex couples entering into contractual agreements with each other or sharing benefits (the military decisions should be made by those with the credit of service day in and day out, not civilian advocacy groups). Isn’t that the goal of this conflict? If so, to me, that’s an issue separate from marriage. In suing over “marriage” itself one is demanding that God change His definition of the union between a man and a woman. If recognition of status, ease with other contractual obligations, and other issues are the issues, why the need to force people of faith to alter recognition of God’s Word on the matter? The people may bend as reeds to lawfare, but God will not. Frankly, I see no point in being on any side other than God’s on any matter, and God is more small government than any player in the scene.
In suing over marriage one is demanding that others modify their beliefs to accommodate another. Do not people of faith retain their First Amendment liberty of freedom of religion?
California voters in Prop 8 are awaiting to see if elections in their state matter. Advocacy groups vilified Mormons yet according to numerous local media reports based on exit polling data, black and latino communities provided “key support” in the passage of Prop 8. The left had a more difficult time vilifying these voting blocs because it’s harder to ask them for votes later. Despite democracy in our constitutional republic working as it should, voters were sued to have their votes in a taxpayer-paid-for election overturned. The gap in the door will widen for lawsuits if the goal of homogenization isn’t realized. Prop 8 is just the beginning. Do you doubt?
Here are a few recent examples:
- Christian photographers Elane Photography in New Mexico were approached by a same sex couple looking to hire a wedding photographer. Elane Photography politely declined citing their Christian faith and were sued by the couple under the state’s anti-discriminatory laws, and won. In New Mexico you apparently have no right to your free expression and practice of faith any longer. (Read even more about this case here.)
- In Lexington, Kentucky, a t-shirt shop called Hands On Originals was approached by the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization about printing shirts for the group. The t-shirt company politely declined and even sought out quotes and gave the group referrals to other t-shirt printers along with comparable prices. They were promptly sued by the group under Lexington’s anti-discriminatory laws and forced to comply with a lengthy investigation. The city’s power-drunk human rights commission said this:
Raymond Sexton, the executive director of the Human Rights Commission told Fox News that “Hands On Originals” will be “required by law to participate in the investigation.” “We have subpoena power and have the backing of the law,” he said. “We are a law enforcement agency and people have to comply.”
Leftist groups are trying to get the company evicted from their premises, the city now has school districts freezing their business with the privately owned company. Meanwhile, the owner of the company tried to defend his faith and decision in an op/ed in the paper.
- A Methodist church in New Jersey was sued for not offering its facility for use during same sex weddings. A judge ruled against them.
- A same sex couple from California sued a Hawaiian bed and breakfast privately owned by a Christian woman for not allowing them to rent a room. – A bed and breakfast in Alton privately owned by a Christian couple was sued when they would not host a same sex civil union ceremony. – Owners of a small, privately-owned inn in Vermont declined to host a same sex wedding reception due to their religious views and were sued. – An employee of Allstate insurance wrote an essay online disagreeing with same sex marriage and was reportedly fired from his job as a result.
- Catholic Charities was barred from assisting in adoptions in Massachusetts, Washington DC, and Illinois and excluded from future contracts because they declined to consider same sex couples. Sorry kids, but the agenda impresarios need to make an example.
There are even more examples, some listed on this page, some not, as they are numerous. Pastors in Canada are already facing lawsuits for simply preaching about marriage from the Bible. Tolerance is demanded of Christians but in this pluralistic society, little, if any, tolerance is afforded to Christian beliefs. Christians aren’t the antagonists here, but they do seem to have fewer rights than those engaging in lawfare to bring about forced acceptance.
Really, this isn’t about gay rights. The left doesn’t give a damn about gay rights. Remember, it was the left that instituted Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and it was a Republican group that led the charge to repeal it. The left hasn’t done anything for the gay community except to offer it lip service and inaction. While leftist groups fight for “marriage equality” the Obama administration makes marriage an economic hit with horrible policy. You got bait and switched, leftists! No, the left cares nothing for gay rights, but they’ll pretend to if they can use the bloc as a wedge to pry the populace from the influence of the church. Why? because it’s easier to convince people that their civil liberties fall under the dominion of man, of government, if the church is portrayed as inept and anachronistic. This is the entire goal. Once man, sinful, awful man controls your rights, your existence as an individual ends and your life as a statist serf begins.
So no, “marriage equality” is emphatically not a conservative value or tactic. Anything where the solution is an invitation for government intervention should be viewed with utmost suspicion.