|
|
|
|
See Copyright Notice at Bottom
The Conservative Case for Same-Sex Marriage
The writers and commentators who purport to render conservative opinion have left us classical conservatives with a dearth of options with which to form an opinion on marriage for same-sex couples, or at least one that is in keeping with our underlying philosophy.
That's no surprise. Classical conservatives are barely noticeable in what passes today for "conservative" thought in national debate and the mass media. We are not cheerleaders for whatever policy the Republican leadership might advance. Instead, Classical Conservatives (or "ClassiCons", the shorthand phrase we use to distinguish ourselves from the ubiquitous "NeoCons") are the heirs of Edmund Burke, the 18th Century Irish writer and member of the British Parliament who reserved judgment on the merits of most matters in favor of maintaining the status quo. In Burke's view, the devil he knew was better than the potential angel he didn't, and radical change was anathema because the consequences could not be foreseen. The most notable example, and the one upon which Burke's philosophy is grounded, is the French Revolution. There, the altruistic fervor that caused the overthrow of the French monarchy led, ultimately, to the Jacobin Reign of Terror.
For classical conservatives, then, there is a dearth of genuinely conservative opinion - opinion supporting the preservation of the status quo - on the issue of marriage between same sex couples. The purportedly conservative notion of amending the Constitution to protect the "sanctity" of civil marriages by prohibiting marriages between couples of the same sex.seems radical to us; it is certainly not in keeping with classical conservative traditions. It would ascribe to the secular law a quasi-religious precept that had not previously existed. The notion that government can "sanctify" civil marriages strikes classical conservatives as about as legitimate a role for civil government as licensing the practice of witchcraft. It endows local Justices of the Peace with a nearly religious eminence and majesty that, to us, seems ill suited to their traditional role of adjudicating speeding tickets and issuing fishing licenses.
Mostly, though, adopting a Constitutional amendment to "define" marriage strikes ClassiCons as tampering with the basic document of American government, something we are always loathe to do. What's more, the amendment would single out a special class for government sanctioned discrimination. To be sure, the desire of ClassiCons to maintain the status quo has often put us on the same side as the most zealous bigots, such as when we opposed public school integration in the 1950's. But our notion of conservatism does not automatically consign us to the lot of haters and the bigots; far from it. Our political philosophy acknowledges the supremacy of the rights of citizens over the authority of government within the status quo. How, then, could we support an entirely new constitutional amendment that sanctions governmental bias against citizens?
Another purportedly conservative view of same-sex unions would call the marriage rose by another name, "civil union", but would leave the mechanism for its adoption to the states. For ClassiCons, this presents a maelstrom of the unpredictability we like to avoid: Will the "Red States" adopt laws that will offer people in civil unions the full panoply of "marital" benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples, or will they limit them? For example, will privileged communications exist between partners in "civil unions" in criminal proceedings, as they do for married couples? Will a civil partner be able to exercise parental authority over the minor child of his civil union partner? Will religious institutions be required to award civil partners the same benefits they award their married heterosexual employees? If a "Red State" court limits rights obtained under a "Blue State" civil partnership, shall we again mark up the constitution to limit (or is it expand?) "judicial activism"?
Instead of falling into this vortex of uncertainty, ClassiCons view unions of couples of the same sex as something that should be done seamlessly; as a natural outgrowth of nearly forty years of the Gay Rights Movement. It should be done in a fashion that incorporates well-settled law and established societal principles with only minimal changes in societal institutions; with proper deference to the rights of citizens over governmental intrusion; without tinkering with the Constitution; and, with the certainty, resolution, and finality that will relieve both the couples and the whole of society of the unforeseen consequences that ClassiCons abhor. Ronald Reagan, who embodied classical conservative notions far more than any other president of the twentieth century, promised in 1980 to "get the government off the backs of the American people". ClassiCons should heed Reagan's call by removing the uncertainty that usually leads to government being "on" the backs of the American people, and endow to same-sex unions explicit and inalienable rights using the institution that people, society and the courts already have at hand; that institution that society has used for centuries to accord proper governmental and societal deference to two consenting adults engaged in a long-term, monogamous, loving relationship.
We call that institution "marriage".
Copyright, 2005. In the Arena. All rights reserved. Any duplication, distribution or re-publication of this article must cite www.inthearna.bravehost.com and notice of use must be sent to Thinking_Republican@yahoo.com prior to use.
bravenet.com