As the title of my blog suggests, I am a moderate Libertarian (and I am still certain that 90% of the people I tell this to actually have no clue what "Libertarian" means... but I digress) and this is one issue I see completely eye-to-eye with the Libertarian Party on(I am relatively moderate, so sometimes I just cannot get completely on-board). So, I'm guessing a fair percentage of you still have no clue where that leaves me standing... The curse of independent thinking and belonging to a party that received just shy of 1% of the popular vote in the 2012 Presidential Election (which was actually quite a turnout! Go Gary!).
I support the legalization of Same-Sex Marriage.
Make no mistake, I would, by no means, consider myself an "activist" for marriage equality. Unfortunately for my fellow gay Americans, the majority of my political attention is focused on a debt approaching $17T, a Democratic Party that, seemingly, has no plans to curb spending, and the growing popularity of a socialist/ "Welfare State" culture in America. Let's just say, the economy and the dissipation of a capitalistic society are 1,2, and 3-10 on my political "agenda".
None-the-less, I support "gay marriage".
I am an advocate of the Constitution, and I believe that banning SSM is unconstitutional. I believe that the Founding Fathers intentionally left the Constitution vague in most areas because they wanted the civil liberties to be broadly guaranteed. The Constitution guarantees these rights to all citizens, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. The government has already grown out of control in a way it was never intended to. Our Founding Fathers spent many a debate questioning how strong the Federal Government should be, lest it become tyrannical. They supported limited government, enough to ensure the safety and protection of its people, but not invasive. (Although this is an issue for another day, I thought it did merit a brief mention in this debate). And this is what I love about the Libertarian Party: the lack of hypocrisy.
Democrat ideals want the government to intervene economically, but "butt-out" socially. Meanwhile, Republicans want the government to intervene socially but not economically. Libertarians just want the government to "butt-out" altogether. Why? Because the Constitution tells us that the rights that were explicitly written have been divided as intended, and that all other rights are reserved for the people. So, if the Constitution doesn't explicitly weigh-in, it belongs to us, not the politicians.
I don't want to go too much more in depth, because I have attached a short, reader-friendly joint argument from the Cato Institute and the Constitutional Accountability Center (2) which relatively easily sums up my view in a no-nonsense way. And it isn't loaded with legal jargon...
However, Dear Republicans, think about it this way: a loss in the Supreme Court this week, could potentially help with a win for you in 2016. IMO, Republicans have a much stronger economic recovery platform (more push for a balanced budget), but they lose it on social issues, and many Americans prioritize these social issues over economic ones. If the Supreme Court declares banning SSM Unconstitutional, then this would be a mute point in Presidential Elections, and one less thing people have to focus on instead of the economy... maybe them Americans with care about the fact that each American currently owes more in national debt than each Greek did when their economy collapsed (yes, you owe over $53K as you read this). This is just one of the issues that the Republican Party may have to bargain on to gain favor with the American Public (yet again, another post for another day).
So yes, marriage is a Constitutionally protected right, but I want to temper your expectations that SCOTUS may not rule so broadly, meaning SSM could be legalized in CA without being legalized nation-wide, and that they could overturn DOMA and recognize marriages conducted in States, without forcing all States to recognize SSM. As Justice Kennedy seems to have suggested today, they could dismiss Proposition 8. There are a lot of ways this could go, and as SCOTUS rules narrowly more traditionally, there is no guarantee that SSM will be legalized nation-wide. If you want more sources on the possible outcomes, let me know and I will pull some sources :)
No matter which way SCOTUS rules, the government needs to maintain religious freedom. Just as people have the right to marriage and non-discrimination from the law, people also have the same right to religious freedom, whether or not they recognize SSM and other social issues. I think that in the crusade for equality, some people lose sight of the rights held by those on the other side of the yellow tape...
This is not about acceptance of others' choices, it is about respect for others' rights.
So, as events unfold this week, stay tuned for some more updates
1. http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm
2. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/constitutional-case-marriage-equality
No comments:
Post a Comment