Posted by
William F. Fathauer III on Sunday, August 17, 2008 4:39:11 PM
I would like to thank Townhall.com for providing a forum for young bloggers such as myself to get a start. I am very excited to begin what I hope will be a long running blog where I can discuss ideas with College Republicans and other fellow lovers of freedom. Thank you again to Townhall.com and everyone who makes this fascinating site possible.
For my first ever blog post, I would like to discuss an issue that was central to the 2004 presidential election and could become an issue again in the future-gay marriage. I was watching a local TV channel here in Phoenix when I came upon a discussion between the various Republicans candidates for the US House in District 5. I happened to turn it on just as the discussion was turning to the idea of a federal amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
I am, like many conservatives(including Jonah Goldberg, George Will, and Ann Coulter), opposed to the federalization of an issue that naturally rests with the states and over which no federal jurisdiction is given to the federal government. But I am at least willing to debate to listen to and debate the issue with advocates of an amendment who argue with intelligence, philisophical merit, and civility. But some of the reasons given by these Republican candidates in support for a federal marriage amendment are either poorly argued or just downright foolish. For example:
- David Schweikert argued that his position on the issue was related to the dangers posed by implementation of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution.
- Mark Anderson believes that government must act to preserve vital social institutions and also believes that the government plays a role in "promoting healthy behavior."
- Laura Knaperek gave a rather bland answer but essentially referred to the worries about children being exposed to this kind of behavior(including in school through education regarding the homosexual lifestyle).
All three of these arguments carry serious faults. First the argument regarding the Full Faith and Credit clause. It is true that under the Constitution, this clause addresses the duties of states within the United States to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of other states. This causes concern amongst many conservatives who fear that a decision like the controversial Goodridge v. Department of Public Health(which stated that the Massachusetts Constitution does not allow the state to deny citizens the right to same-sex marriage) will project into other states, forcing states who object to homosexual marriage to recognize the legality of those performed in states like Massachusetts. However this concern is largely illogical, as the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 ensures that "no state(or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state." The Congress utilized its constitutional power to limit the Full Faith and Credit clause to avoid one state forcing its legal opinions on every other state in the Union. Thus that crisis was solved and no further federal action should logically be deemed necessary, providing that a successful attempt to undermine DOMA is not reached.
With regards to the opinion that it is government's job to protect vital social institutions, I would agree. I believe that a people with no respect for tradition and the social fabric of their society is not a people that will survive. However this is still not a legitimate argument for federal action. Anderson's second argument crosses the line from misguided to ridiculous. Perhaps there are more than one versions of the US Constitution, but the one in my possession does not provide for the "promotion of healthy behaviors" as an enumerated power of the federal government. It is not the federal government's role to ensure that I live in a responsible and healthy manner. It is my responsibility. Such justification has long been the province of leftist busybodies who see it as a moral mission to protect people from themselves through seat belt laws and smoking bans. Get the hell of my back.
Finally, I come to Laura Knaperek's argument, which I believe to be the most distressing. For over a century, the left has attempted to stifle debate by claiming that conservative opposition to their proposals was mean-spirited or born out of malice to the people progressive policies were intended to help. The most portentous argument used was the ever popular Helen Lovejoy argument(referring to the character on the popular TV show The Simpsons who is always badgering unwilling Sprinfielders to action with a cry of "Oh, won't somebody think of the children?!"). This argument has been used by the likes of Hillary Clinton and her friends of the left to smear conservatives child-hating evildoers who wanted the children of single parents to live on the street without welfare and contract disease and die without SCHIP coverage. And now we have a Republican congressional candidate drudging out the "let us all cry for the children" card to argue for federal action to ban gay marriage. Regardless of one's opinion on the issue of homosexual unions, the utilization of such an argument should arouse anger amonst all limited-government conservatives.
First it shows great disrespect to parents who are perfectly capable of passing on their own moral wisdom regarding the issue of homosexuality to their offspring without government's help. Secondly this immoral imagery of the most vulnerable among us serves to end the conversation and stifle all debate as to whether or not intervention in marriage law is an extraconstitutional effort by the federal government. Using this line of thinking, if one opposes federal action in this regard, one is tarred as wanting to allow the homosexual agenda to spread throughout our culture and influence our children. Its childish and ridiculous analysis. Our federal government is one of very few and limited powers. Marriage law is not a provision of this government. The federal government's job is to protect our children from foreign threats such as Nazis, Communists, Islamic fundamentalists, and phone-throwing Australian actors. It is not responsible for preventing social changes best dealt with by, naturally, society.