Robert Bentley asks Why Are Old School Conservatives Scared of Gay Marriage? Mr. Bentley established and opines regularly in the libertarian leaning blog Conservative for Change, to which I also contribute.
His view is given away by the article’s title. Young, open-minded libertarians should cast aside the cowardly bigotry of grumpy old logically-challenged conservatives. He asserts that all American humans have a Constitutional right to marriage and homosexuals are human; therefore, acceptance of same-sex marriage is Constitutionally required. To say otherwise is to deny homosexuals their humanity.
Simple as that, and don’t worry about how much this seems to be eerily reminiscent of far left progressive thought on the topic. Should we still concern ourselves with historical connections, like the oddly similar condemnation of the relics of bourgeois prejudice by Communist Party members in The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage (1926)?
If we are not merely to assume that ancient leftists were just as stupid as old American conservatives and merely tripped across an enlightened, modern, libertarian idea by accident, perhaps we might wonder if there is something deeper here. Sure enough, there is, and it’s my view that young, open-minded libertarians should not be afraid to join older, more experienced soldiers in the eternal struggle for liberty, even if it means daring to take the risk of being labeled an old school conservative.
Let me anchor my perspective a little more before leading you to the main point. First, I would describe myself as politically conservative. I am as capable of becoming irritated by social and even fiscal conservatives as anyone, for, like progressives, they are easily led from the path of freedom by their causes. Both American political conservatism and libertarianism have their roots in classic liberalism. To assure you that I am not merely defending my generation of old Alzheimer patients, let me pay homage to a classic liberal and soldier of freedom from the more distant past. John Stuart Mill, who philosophically justified individual freedom over state control, observed:
“It would be absurd to pretend that people ought to live as if nothing whatever had been known in the world before they came into it; as if experience had as yet done nothing towards showing that one mode of existence, or of conduct, is preferable to another.”
My concern as a political conservative however, has little to do with individual choices regarding one’s own mode of existence or conduct. I do not see my perspective as being in conflict with Robert Bentley’s general libertarian ideology; that “people should be able to live their lives as they see fit and not have interference from others, unless it harms others around them.” It all comes down to facts.
The problem with the typical public discussions on this topic, characterized in Mr. Bentley’s remarks along with those of many others, is that they mischaracterize the change in the relationship between people and the state brought about by the redefinition of marriage. Traditional marriage has been abolished in the United States, along with the Constitutionally based individual rights (i.e. fundamental civil rights) that accompanied it.
In the formal, legal sense, marriage is no longer considered a sacred private institution deserving the strictest protection against arbitrary government intrusion. In P.O.P.S. v. GARDNER (1993), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (from the left coast, the most radical anti-Constitution, most frequently overturned federal court in the nation) reclassified marriage and family law from civil law to social policy. Few people recognize the profound difference that makes, and the leftstream media was too busy promoting the causes that led to the change to take notice.
Civil law involves the messy business of attempting to sort out private matters within the Constitutional limits of government power. It is part of what defines classic liberal government and is essential to maintenance of Constitutional rule. That we have civil rights in fact, depends on restraint by courts to avoid arbitrary rulings. Civil law is a place where the new age libertarian philosophy that people should be able to live their lives as they see fit and not have interference from others, unless it harms others around them has traditionally met with the real world.
From a Constitutional perspective, with specific concern for the power of government and civil rights, social policy is much the same as economic policy. While economic policy traditionally referred to fiscal policy (taxes, prime interest rate, money supply), social policy lies at the more recently developed socialist end of government activity, involving the redistribution of wealth through a system of entitlements (i.e. the “welfare system”). There are no Constitutional limits whatsoever that restrain political manipulation of social policy. If you don’t like current or proposed tax or entitlement rates, you can only vote for someone whose ideas you like better. Your Constitutional right is limited to equal treatment under existing laws.
If marriage and family are no longer legally respected in the framework of a sacred private institution, what are they? They have been absorbed into the welfare system where they are defined as elements in government programs, subject to arbitrary political manipulation. Under the current definition, marriage could be completely abolished. Children could be taken from parents and sent to separate camps to be raised by government care-takers. If you don’t like those ideas, be sure to vote for people who have more traditional ideas about how marriage and family should be treated, because you currently have no rights to stop a majority in power that would change it. (You really do need to think carefully about the issue of adoption by same-sex partners and note carefully the consistent argument that children are better off being raised by homosexuals than by their nasty old natural parents.)
The facts do not seem to allow a way to reach Robert Bentley’s perspective. It presumes that homosexuals are being granted rights traditionally reserved for opposite sex couples. They are not. Now none of us has legal access to traditional marriage and the fundamental rights that accompanied it. The humanity of homosexuals has not been recognized by this change. Instead, everyone’s humanity is being systematically denied. I think young, idealistic libertarians like Robert Bentley need to give this issue a second hearing. Although I can’t speak for all old school conservatives, at least some of us might have already developed a more complete understanding.
On a more general note, marriage and family have been placed in the bin of federal social and economic policies based on over-reaching interpretation of the Commerce Clause. As long as federal courts are willing and can get away with arbitrarily reclassifying other areas of law into social and economic policy, allowing this treatment, the Constitution is not actually in effect. The P.O.P.S. case, and the Supreme Court’s refusal to review the ruling, played a critical role in the downfall of Constitutional rule. Related on the subject of the change in marital law and the downfall of the Constitution (along with many of my other articles at the same site): Are Americans Paying Taxes to Organized Crime Syndicates?.
Pingback: Tweets that mention ‘Scared’ of Same-Sex Marriage, or Better Informed? | MND: Your Daily Dose of Counter-Theory -- Topsy.com