The Republican-Friendly Argument for Marriage Equality

With the gay marriage issue heating up again and many Republicans switching sides in favor of marriage equality, there are still many conservatives out there who are against it. Most liberal Democrats simply accuse opponents of gay marriage of being religious bigots, which really does nothing to bridge the gap between the ideologies of the left and right. As a Libertarian who straddles both sides, I'll attempt to raise a few points about marriage equality... in a way the right might be able to understand a little better.

The biggest argument against marriage equality I've heard is the "re-defining of marriage" argument. According to Leviticus, homosexuality is an abomination. I won't dispute that. And, since marriage is a sanctuous institution in Judeo-Christian religions, many Christians feel this is a government imposition on religion to involve what is seen as an "abomination" onto the sanctity of marriage. In other words, followers of religions who are opposed to homosexuality don't wish to have the government force them to base something as holy as marriage on what God considers an "abomination."

But, the truth is, the "marriage equality" debate really has little to do with actual marriage. In most cases, the purpose of marriage is to engage in an official commitment to each other and their community in the witness of whatever God they worship, if any. Whether or not a marriage is actually recognized by the government has little to do with the religious aspect of marriage or the validity of the actual commitment.

The "definition of marriage" is essentially dependent on the parties involved. In Christianity, the Bible speaks against homosexuality. I won't deny this because I speak English and I can read. Thus, followers of the Bible may disapprove and even disallow same-sex marriages. However, in many other religions, homosexuality is not discouraged. Same-sex marriage in those particular religions is welcomed, and is even taking place. Marriage is an ancient tradition that is practiced by Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists and even Agnostics and Atheists. Even in some sects of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, same-sex marriages are recognized and allowed even though their texts may speak against it.

This means, gay marriage is already happening. If I'm a part of a religion that considers marriage as just tossing stones in a river and doing a silly dance, then under our tradition and in our community, we're married. Whether or not the government recognizes it is irrelevant. If God feels my actions are an abomination and becomes angry, the damage has most likely already been done. The actual debate over gay marriage deals with legal recognition.

True marriage equality would be if the government remained transparent and allowed marriage to be "defined" simply by those who participate in it. Government playing a role in marriage causes a lot of problems. Far too often, the legal benefits of marriage lead to marriages that take place for the wrong reasons. Often the government considers the legal validity of a union when ruling on private disputes rather than the actual factors at hand. Courts often look at marriage as a factor when ruling over things like child custody and immigration, which often forces people into a marriage they later regret. Often, this leads to divorces, which also goes against many religions including Christianity. Not to mention, if “marriage” is legally defined by a religious doctrine, and legal rulings are being determined by that, we’re basically rewarding people for conforming to theology rather than independent virtue.

However, if our government is going to offer benefits and restrictions based on private civil commitments like marriage, they have a constitutional obligation to offer the same benefits and restrictions across the board. Thus, the debate isn't about the "definition of marriage (which is subjective and is not dependent on law)," it's about the constitutional distribution of government benefit. If government should not recognize same sex marriage, it should not recognize any marriage (which should actually be the platform of anyone who is small-government who respected private religious institution). But, if government should offer benefits to "traditional marriage," it should offer benefits to any marriage. Either way, private civil unions should be treated equally under the law.

Another common argument I hear is the speculation that, simply allowing same-sex couples to be legally recognized would create a slippery slope that would lead to civil law imposing unwelcome morals on private religious institutions. Meaning, if we allow gay marriage, the government will forbid churches from denying same-sex couples.

Though unlikely, I wouldn't necessarily count this possibility out. I am very much aware that there is a fringe group of nut-jobs to the far left who believe that progressive values are so important that they would result to a sort of neo-fascism to impose those value onto the public despite individual convictions.

However, I wouldn't say this speculation necessitates a complete denial of same-sex couples. Currently, churches are well within' their legal right to decide who they will marry despite what the government does or doesn't consider acceptable. For instance, many churches deny couples who engage in pre-marital relations, have children out of wedlock, are not baptized, and a whole myriad of other reasons that are simply dependant on the values of the church in question. This is within' their legal constitutional right despite the legal recognition of these marriages. The so-called "separation of church and state" goes both ways. Religion should, in no way, provide a basis for legislation, nor should law dictate the practices of independent religious institutions. It's that simple.

Even if we do see a push by the far left to force churches to allow same-sex couples to marry, that is a separate fight that shouldn't restrict the very legal recognition of couples who engage in marriage under whatever their private convictions are. If two people want to engage in whatever they feel like marriage is, what right would the government of a "free society" have to impose outside convictions on them? The issue is not whether or not people are "married" according to your opinion of what you think marriage "should be," the issue is whether or not the government should or shouldn’t be treating everyone with the same opportunities despite their convictions and personal assemblies. We cringe at the idea of foreign invaders persecuting us for not following their God, let's not do the same to our own people. Republicans are the party of individual responsibility. Allow individuals to decide what marriage is and what it entails... not the state.