Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

CONSERVATISM AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Few things are as disheartening as listening to Conservatives completely miss the point and therefore miss an opportunity. Such was the case when Conservatives argued that religious liberty, as opposed to private property rights, should enable bakers to refuse to bake cakes for homosexual weddings. Conservatives are now repeating their folly in their response to the recent Supreme Court Ruling effectively making homosexual marriage the law of the land.

Almost to a candidate, the GOP presidential hopefuls all responded to last week’s ruling by vowing to fight religious persecution.  What they should have been talking about was big government. They should have been asking why the government is in the business of issuing marriage licenses in the first place, and vowing to get Uncle Sam out of the marriage business once and for all.

Rand Paul came closest to the bulls-eye when he wrote for Time Magazine: “…resist any intrusion of government into the religious sphere” — and that means ending marriage benefits like tax breaks and getting government out of the institution altogether.

“Since government has been involved in marriage, they have done what they always do — taxed it, regulated it, and now redefined it…”

Amen!

Typical of the Left, gays and lesbians and their Progressive allies believe that morality is achieved through bureaucratic administration.  However, as a friend of mine put it so brilliantly: “Traditional marriage doesn’t involve government. This point is still being missed by the people who believe government can create a moral society with the “right” laws.”

Alas, that point is also being missed by Conservatives who claim to believe in limited government. Hey!  Did it ever occur to any of you guys to actually argue for limiting government?

Let’s be clear.  The very definition of a license is that some are sanctioned by government to do what others are not.  In the case of marriage licenses, all people could marry except those involved in inter-racial relationships.  In order to stifle inter-racial marriage the idea of government issued licenses was introduced. (And quiet as it’s kept, keeping guns out of the hands of Black people was the reason gun laws were introduced.  But I digress.) By the late 1920’s marriage licenses were the law of the land and the Progressive era introduced the Federal government’s use of licenses as a means to distribute goodies and benefits to some people and not to others.

Conservatives ought to be rushing to dismantle the federal marriage business and to put marriage back where it belongs, under the auspices of the church.  Those citizens who do not belong to a church are free to visit the county courthouse and enter into a civil contract.

Last week’s re-definition of marriage by the federal government was to be expected.  There is a perfect logic to the idea that government benefits must flow to people equally. This recent decision by the Supreme Court presents a perfect opportunity to demonstrate the consequences of government intrusion into areas for which it has zero business. Drawing the battle lines in preparation for a religious war will be a noble, but alas, a losing cause.


About Author

Joseph C. Phillips

Joseph C. Phillips was born on January 17, 1962 in Denver, Colorado, USA as Joseph Connor Phillips. He is an actor, known for General Hospital (1994), The Cosby Show (1984) and Strictly Business (1991). He has been married to Nicole since 1994. They have three children.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Send this to friend