Small Government, Big Moral Police?
No true “small-government conservative” can oppose same-sex marriage in policy. For if a government can dictate who can and cannot wed, then it can no longer be considered small.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
No trackbacks/pingbacks yet.
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
The Republicans could steal Congress away from the Democrats in 2012 (Obama will have to screw up pretty badly to lose re-elecection) if they stick to true small-government principles. They’ll never run Ron Paul, or anyone explicitly libertarian, but I could definitely vote GOP if they ran someone like Meg Whitman and she stuck to her guns throughout the campaign.
Even though the climate would certainly be friendly to more fiscally conservative candidates, I’m still not sure if we are ready for a true libertarian. I hear pundits talking almost constantly about returning to conservative principles, and most of their audience agrees. But when they elaborate on what they consider conservative, they inevitably lump fiscal responsibility with bans on gay marriage (cloaked in the very shrewd “traditional family” rhetoric) and perpetuating a status quo foreign policy.
I think that, unfortunately, the rock of greed for power is one that might take a while to completely chip away. I know that wreaks of compromise, and I don’t necessarily support an “almost there” candidate, but it could be argued that moving in the right direction is better than standing still. I’m torn. As always, principle and pragmatism are bitter and constant rivals.
Pretty much an epic win for my state: Massachusetts is suing the federal government over the Defense of Marriage Act, as it abridges the state’s exclusive, constitutional right to define marriage, violates the ‘full faith and credit’ clause of Article IV of the Constitution (which states that ‘Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state’); and cripples the state’s ability to honor its constitutional requirement to treat its citizens equally under the law in such matters as distributing benefits to relatives (including gay spouses) of veterans, federal tax benefits for married couples, etc- besides violating the 14th amendment to the US constitution, for good measure.
I think more states need to be gutsy enough to stand up to the Feds. Back in pre-Civil War America, that was one way the people were able to stop the Feds from being too invasive. They didn’t rely on a case being brought before the Supreme Court … they’d just say “nope, I don’t think so”.
Of course, the Civil War changed all that. Kudos to Massachusetts. It was very likely to win votes, but you take what you can get
If I suggested that my pet fish be defined as a “dependent (minor child)” on my tax return, because in my world my fish are like my children, you should redefine it as such to make me happy?
And if you complain, can I call you a big government promoter?
I’d suggest finding a different analogy. I’m wholly opposed to a Federal Income Tax, and thus, opposed to the idea of needing to list household members (human or not) as dependents.
It’s also flawed in that it makes an equal comparison between a fish and a same-sex partner, but I won’t read into that too much and assume it wasn’t intentional.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s use the analogy.
1. Don’t try to use a slippery-slope argument unless you can reasonably demonstrate that the one will most likely lead to the other. I’m not sure if that’s what you were getting at, so if not, please ignore.
2. Listing a fish as a dependent has significant legal implications.
3. Removing the government from the regulation of marriage removes all legal implications. That’s the point.
So, question for you … stripping out metaphors and the like, is there any specific reason you would want to legally prohibit two reasonable adults from getting married at any church that would allow it, simply because they happen to share the same gender?