Allow me to open this article promoting gay marriage with a declaration that society absolutely has the right to prohibit gay marriage.


The vast majority of human society has no historical precedent for gay marriage, and that reality is reflected in our current society's traditions, mores and laws. Instituting a new custom allowing gay marriage would be a dramatic break from the past, and should honestly be viewed as such. No dramatic societal change should ever take place without a thoughtful examination of its justifications, costs and benefits.

Society has the absolute right to define marriage as exclusively male/female. Marriage by its very definition is a social contract and as such, the society that it reflects has every right and even a cultural duty to define it in a way that respects their customs, mores, and traditions. If a society's traditions cannot reflect their own history and values, then just whose history and values should it reflect?

Uncomfortable enhanced interrogation techniques could not get me to change my opinion on society's absolute right to define marriage. In fact, that right is the cornerstone of my argument that society can and should choose to re-define marriage to include same sex couples. It's a two-way street. Society can decide an issue one way... or the other. I argue here, as a conservative, for the other.

Whether a society can be said to reflect the religion(s) it practices, or the reverse – that the religion(s) reflect the society, it is true that religion has a major role in the institution of marriage in any society. Even in a society with a secular government, religion is most likely the primary or only institution which actually defines marriage, with the state merely endorsing or validating the rites and customs of the church. Again, despite the secular nature of such governments, it is proper to do it that way.

It is important to recognize the legitimacy of any given religion's right to hold that gay marriage is either acceptable within it's congregations or not. Without freedom to define its doctrines and customs, there is no freedom for religion. So, the proper place of government is not to pre-define what a specific religion may or may not decide, but to leave open the door for them to decide for themselves, and afford them the freedom to follow it in good conscience, without penalty.

Therefore, if a legitimately recognized religion or sect adheres to a custom of allowing and sanctifying same-sex marriage, it is not the state's place to either allow or disallow it, but only to register and validate the fact for secular legal purposes. Religion cannot truly be free if one religion's mores and customs are codified as law restricting the good faith practices of other religions. Religion-based laws restricting the good faith practices of those who hold no religion are equally invalid.

For society to adopt, as secular law, some of the institutions and traditions of a religion is not entirely offensive to the idea of freedom of religion, though. While many religious customs have their basis in sound practical reasoning, the test of applicability to secular law should be whether or not the justification for that law is entirely religious or whether it also has compelling, independent secular justifications.

This is where conservatives are well implored to apply the principles of Libertarian philosophy. In order for government to be justified in compelling its citizens to do or refrain from doing a thing, there aught to be a compelling interest in the state doing so. The simple presence of a majority will or religious imperative is not sufficient. An independent justification which can withstand apolitical and areligious examination is imperative.

That joke is not only true and funny, but instructive. The unspoken part of the joke - the part that would render it less funny so it is not mentioned - is that conservatives should not want the government in ANY room of the house.

To justify intrusion and regulation of a person's personal choices, the government needs to demonstrate a reasonable and compelling interest in doing so. That is a cornerstone of conservative political thought, going back to one of our nations' founding conservative, Thomas Jefferson. Concurrently, before a society adopts a positive policy endorsing any thing, government also aught to demonstrate a compelling justification and interest.

I cannot honestly imagine any truly conservative, non-religious justification for prohibiting same sex marriage, except established custom and tradition. As I state above, the existence of established custom implies an ability to change that custom. Popular custom is one of the pure forms of democracy. It is therefore less an argument for prohibition as it is an impediment to impetuous change, acting to slow the process of change, and rightly so. The argument for gay marriage from a conservative perspective rests, then, not on tradition, but on its positive aspects which compel its adoption.

The compelling argument for society endorsing gay marriage is exactly the same argument for society endorsing heterosexual marriage: It promotes conservative family values, discourages promiscuity, and forms a familial structure that promotes stability and adherence to valuable customs and traditions. The trinity of American patriotism is God, family and country, in that order. If we kick the feet out from under any of the three, the others topple as well. When we encompass gay marriage into the fold of family, it reinforces the acceptance of God and country. When we deny gay couples the legitimacy of family, then we can expect their allegiance to God and country to erode as well. It is a three-legged stool.

Now is as good a time as any to address the sub-topic of secular marriage. Getting married by a judge, clerk of the court, or other non-religious office. I frankly oppose government involvement in religion, and as I have said, marriage is, in its inception, a religious institution. However, there are atheists out there. I would suggest that there are plenty of non-religious avenues for marriage outside of government. Remove marriage from the duties of any government employee. Marriage is private and the government aught no be involved in any way except after the fact, and then as a recorder of fact for legal purposes. As marriage is a contract, perhaps notaries public could be called upon to perform the rites in a civil format.

My fear is that I have been wholly inadequate in my efforts to defend gay marriage from a conservative perspective. There is little I can do about that. Either my reasoning is sound or it is not. Either my ability to communicate my reasons is clear, or it is not. In either case, I hope that reason and not emotion is employed in interpreting my words here.

I am certain that some who read this may be of a leftist persuasion and will as such reject many of the conservative foundational principles that I use to justify gay marriage. That's OK. Your opinions are legitimate, even if different than my own. All I ask is the same courtesy of respecting a person's right to hold a differing opinion.

I am equally certain that many who read this are conservative and will as such reject many of the conservative foundational principles that I use to justify gay marriage. That's also OK. Your opinions are legitimate, even if different than my own. All I ask is the same courtesy of respecting a person's right to hold a differing opinion.