There is a lively debate going on in my local newspaper about gay marriage in Pennsylvania. Our state senator is championing a constitutional amendament to ban it. The liberal editorial writer here claims that this kind of activism constitutes "big government conservatism" and that social conservatives are schizophrenic when it comes to the principle of smaller government (i.e., we like it only when it suits our needs, and primarily then only in the economic realm.) My libertarian impulses say let people live with the consequences of their decisions and don't legislate it. However, my deeper conservative nature sees this not as an expansion of government for moral purposes, but merely a clarification of the participants in a marriage contract to preserve social order. By contrast, Prohibition was a true expansion of government control by making a previously legal substance illegal, and thus requiring state regulation and police action. What do you think?
Not to sound sexist or be against gays, I have many friends who are. However, I would like to say, I am with your state senator. Our government, as with all others, has never had to truely deal with this issue until now. Over many generations, we as a human beings have most genearally held true to the fact that being 'gay' is wrong. Not influenced by just religious reasons, but peoples' own thoughts. If now has evolved to the state where, being gay is ok, which it is. However, the moral feeling against gay marriage that has been so engrained into us over the many generations still holds, which would explain why so many people are against it. Gay marraige is not the norm as far as our short human history goes. I wouldn't go as far as saying that it is "big government conservatism". Also, there are many things that the government has to consider in this. There are many effects to allowing it. Special benifits, government aid, etc. Many new laws would need to added to protect rights, give aid, benefits, etc. As it is, our goverment can't function with the little bit it has on its plate now. Adding this just would be making the goverment come closer to that fianal straw that breaks their backs. I say, go as we have for the last few thousand years and leave the issue alone. We have made it this far with out killing eachother over something like this, I think we can last without a "solution". I know this is a little vague but I am tring to get caught up on school work and got distracted. I have to go finish a government paper now...
I guess in an age like this one where there are no acknowledged essences I don't care if I sound sexist because there is no more an essential sexism than there is an essence of masculinity or femininity. But that's beside the point.
In, for all practical purposes, every culture since the beginning of the world there has been an acknowledged and protected relationship in which a man took a woman or women into a relationship that founded a new social unit in which children were raised and nourished. Our culture has always called that relationship marriage.
Lately, fidelity, raising children, and other normal expectations of this relationship have been exchanged for tax breaks while the consequences of infidelity have been minimized. As a result, the essence of marriage was overthrown by married people.
Now people want to call any loving relationship marriage.
If they use the word, it won't change the reality. Homosexual "marriages" will never be the same kind of relationship that a man and woman can have in a covenant - one in which the normal, natural development is for the love of the partners to bring new life into the world.
