Gay marriage is hardly immune from the same rationalizing process; indeed, it illuminates it. As Justin Raimondo warned fellow homosexuals who promote marriage (in The American Conservative):
If and when gay marriage comes to pass, its advocates will have a much harder time convincing their fellow homosexuals to exercise their ‘right’ than they did in persuading the rest of the country to grant it. That’s because they have never explained—and never could explain—why it would make sense for gays to entangle themselves in a regulatory web and risk getting into legal disputes over divorce, alimony, and the division of property. Marriage evolved because of the existence of children: without them, the institution loses its biological, economic, and historical basis, its very reason for being.
Yes, the problem is children. Once they enter the equation, libertarians beware, so does the state. Yet, as a great deal of research suggests, and is implicitly conceded even by the critic Reeves, there are definite advantages to having one man and one woman raise children. Does that mean the government should outlaw gay marriage? That would mean the state has the power to determine what marriage is—and can change it. Social conservatives should be as wary as libertarians or gays of handing over such decisions to bureaucrats, whether wearing robes nor not.
There is nothing about marriage in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court insists on becoming the supreme canon tribunal to define marriage. So far, “marriage equality” is restricted to receiving national government welfare benefits; but district court decisions have even overruled state constitutions that limit marriage to one man and one woman. It is already the case that after thousands of years, there is no longer a word for a marriage of one man and one woman. Of course, welfare benefits are not in the Constitution either, only concern for the general welfare–the opposite of micro-managed benefits for every possible interest. If equal benefits are the issue, all government welfare should go to individuals only, including children.
Unless one is willing to turn every important societal decision over to a rotating five-person Court majority, the only answer would seem to be to turn marriage back over to the churches, whose authority over it was only negated at the time of the French Revolution. Or at least to send the issue back to the states where the Constitution placed it, and welfare too for that matter. States, communities, churches, special covenants, and the rest are the only way to keep the Supreme Court from becoming the de facto established national church of the U.S.
For the reasons Raimondo specifies, it is doubtful that marriage will be popular among homosexuals, especially among men. Why take on the legal and financial burdens of marriage and divorce? Many often ask what difference gay marriage could make for traditional marriage, especially if few gays take advantage of the opportunity. General moral acceptance of gay lifestyles as marital political rights, however, inevitably means that traditionalists, especially those bound by religious objections, will be branded as bigots. Voicing such objections can be punished as hate speech or punished by college authorities as prejudice. Refusal to participate in gay weddings and events has already been treated as discrimination punishable by law for photographers, caterers, and bakers. Libertarians who support gay marriage but not applying anti-discrimination laws ignore the reality of public policy today.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.