The Republican Case for Gay Marriage
by Maura Flynn“I am a little to the right of Rush Limbaugh. I’m so conservative that I approve of San Francisco City Hall marriages, adoption by same-sex couples, and New Hampshire’s recently ordained Episcopal bishop. Gays want to get married, have children, and go to church. Next they’ll be advocating school vouchers, boycotting HBO, and voting Republican.” — P.J. O’Rourke, The Atlantic, July/August 2004
Thanks to Dave Konig for addressing the topic of gay marriage here on Big Hollywood the other day. As he pointed out, the issue itself might not cause most to lose sleep, come what may. But perhaps it should.
As a nation we’re at a crossroads, no question. Our banking industry scrambles to escape quasi-nationalization, our auto industry is in the process of being nationalized, and we have instituted, of all things, a Car Czar (note: it took Russia roughly 300 years to stack up so many czars). If that isn’t bad enough, nationalized health care is on the table again.
So as the Republic devolves and those with the means contemplate hightailing it to the Caymans, it’s probably time to ask ourselves what it is to be “conservative.”
One need only read the comments on this site to know that there are two fundamental schools of thought here. Some of us believe that to be conservative is to defend freedom, preserve individual liberty, and keep government small. Others believe that being conservative is about electing a government that will defend and enforce “traditional” values.
For our purposes here, a list of those values isn’t relevant. But if you place yourself in this camp, consider whether you truly want a government that will enforce your personal values at gunpoint (this is what all laws effectively do). And if you surrender such power to the government — power to defend not your life or your property, mind you, but your values — can you live with the consequences when your officials are no longer in power and you are staring down the business end of that barrel? Could you live with mandatory government schooling, for instance? (I could not). When you find yourself in a minority, as everyone does at some point, what protections do you imagine that you will have, other than our Constitution? One of the beauties of that document is that no citizen can undermine it without eventually putting his own interests in peril.
In the context of this debate, it is impossible to overemphasize that this is the same inspired, carefully considered document that protects the religious freedom we hold dear.
Looked at from this perspective, gay marriage isn’t a complex issue. Science aside, one needn’t believe that homosexuality is moral in order to understand that nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government the right to regulate marriage.
The Republican Party has made a huge mistake in advocating a kind of Cafeteria Constitutionalism. (I’ll take some guns, no helmet laws, please, a free market, and…yuck, hold the gay marriage!). One can’t legitimately invoke the Constitution to oppose federally mandated sex education, and then use the federal government to impose school prayer. Leave that fair-weather-federalism to the Left.
It’s not a state secret that the Democrat Party has become little more than a loose coalition of special interest groups with few or no coherent philosophical underpinnings. It’s also apparent that the Republicans are equally lost philosophically and couldn’t even manage to nominate a presidential candidate with the fiscal good sense to oppose corporate bailouts. Now here we are: face to face with an opportunity to take stock, recalibrate, and decide what we want from our political leaders.
Me, I implore the Republicans to become — once and for all — the party of freedom. The true moral highground is there to seize. Our Constitution was created as a shield against government encroachment on our personal lives. Conservatives should be the last people who would dare turn this document into a weapon.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
6 Comments
[...] at Big Hollywood, Maura Flynn has an outstanding post entitled The Republican Case for Gay Marriage. The entire thing his worth reading, but here is the key passage: Me, I implore the Republicans to [...]
[...] leave a comment » Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » The Republican Case for Gay Marriage. [...]
[...] central tenet of Republican philosophy—and how belief in decreased federal regulation precludes any national legalization or prohibition of gay marriage. Meanwhile, independent voters who [...]
[...] Flynn is one such person who has made a Republican case for gay marriage featured on Big Hollywood. This is in response to her argument. I ask you to also read it – to give her a just [...]
[...] Flynn is one such person who has made a Republican case for gay marriage featured on Big Hollywood. This is in response to her argument. I ask you to also read it – to give her a just [...]
[...] at Big Hollywood, Maura Flynn has an outstanding post entitled The Republican Case for Gay Marriage. The entire thing is worth reading, but here is the key passage: Me, I implore the Republicans to [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.