Posted by
voice_of_reason on Saturday, May 17, 2008 6:48:52 AM
The California Supreme Court's 4-3 decision in support of Gay Marriage is a gift to the (R) party, which is otherwise heading for an electoral drubbing in November.
As a direct result of the Calif Supremes' decision, the 'Gay Marriage' and 'Activist Judges' issues will dominate the national debate during the general election. With these issues on the front-burner, many Social Conservatives may be persuaded to vote (R) this year.
Unfortunately, this will help the (R) party gloss over its ineptness in driving the debate on economic and national security matters. While it may not assure the (R) party of victory in November, the party will be defeated, not disgraced. This will prevent the true introspection that comes from a sound electoral defeat.
In the long run, this is not good news for those conservatives who place a priority on economic and national security issues.
But, is there an equitable approach to 'Gay Marriage'? I'm not referring to the religious or social aspect of this issue - but it is undeniable that a gay couple is not treated the same as a heterosexual couple by the Govt.
Disclosure#1: I am a happily married, heterosexual, conservative male. Socially, I don't have a personal stake in this debate. What is the significance of this disclosure? In our polarized country, it is assumed that only Gays or liberals care about Gay Marriage and that all straight conservatives oppose it. However, conservatives too believe that there has to be fairness and equality in our policies.
Disclosure#2: Due to my political atheism, I choose to ignore the religious viewpoint that opposes gay marriage or any other issue. If a conservative (or libertarian) position can't be defended based on fundamental rights, the constitution or objective law, then it is lost anyway! As I have mentioned before, that does not constitute an anti-Religious sentiment. What it does mean is that I accept the reality that issues cannot be decided in modern America on a religious basis alone.
I find that the secular, conservative viewpoint opposing Gay Marriage is weak. Most of the points that are raised by secular conservatives can also apply to heterosexual marriage as well. Therefore, conservatives who oppose Gay Marriage typically fall back on the argument from tradition or religion.
What if:
* heterosexual couples also received a Civil Union document along with their marriage license
* gay couples could also obtain Civil Union documents
* the word 'marriage' had religious and traditional connotations, but no financial or civil benefits
* all Civil Unions were treated identically by the state
While on the subject, why not assume that:
* taxes were 'flat'
* married couples did not get any special treatment under the tax laws
Would gays still agitate for the right to 'marry' if there were no economic benefits involved?
It took a Civil War to end Slavery -- perhaps Civil Unions will end the the 'War' on Gay Marriage?
I invite thoughtful comments from readers, preferably along non-religious grounds. Why? Because it usually ceases to be an intellectual debate when one injects religion into poltical or social debate.