Addendum to "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage"

Ted Olson's recent article, though well written, lacks the "get off my lawn" sentiment that the conservative movement is once again starting to show. Some of his arguments simply shouldn't resonate with Small Government Conservatives. He refers to Lincoln at least twice, as if Lincoln had anything to do with a small government, and he writes at length about "the value of strong families, lasting domestic relationships, and communities populated by persons with recognized and sanctioned bonds to one another", as if it's any of Government's business to engineer society. And, he misses some major arguments that SHOULD resonate with Small Government Conservatives.

The first argument that he should have brought in is freedom of religion. Conservatives view Separation of Church and State as a wall meant to protect the religious sphere from Government intrusion. Matters of God should not be matters of Government, and any act of Government to regulate, oversee, or restrict religious activity is an unjust denial of the individual's right to follow his or her own conscience. And, needless to say, Conservatives view marriage as a God-ordained institution. If marriage is a sacred journey, then it too should be protected against the intrusions of Government. Just as a preacher should be free to preach without having to get the Government's permission, so too should a couple be free to marry without having to get the Government's permission. This means, of course, that Government should get completely out of the marriage business, just as it should get out of a whole lot of other businesses. There should be no such thing as a marriage license.

Now, this particular argument doesn't work on all Conservatives, since not all Conservatives view marriage as a matter of God. But there is another argument that is just as "get off my lawn" as the former, and which can resonate with secularists. This argument is the personal and family freedom argument. The religious sphere isn't the only sphere that should be protected from Government. Every aspect of personal life should be safe from Government's eyes and fingers. Conservatives frequently talk about a man's rights to live his own way, to build his cabin where he wants to, to send his kids to whichever school he thinks best, or to teach them at home, to decide on his own or with his wife what they and their kids will eat and wear and how they will travel and how they will pass their time together, etc. We should be free to live our lives without having to grovel for Our Illustrious Overlords' sufferance. As in the former argument, this argument concludes by demanding that Government get out of the way - completely.

The patriot should demand not marriage equality (equality is just another word for a guillotine) but marriage freedom. Of course, I say should, because I have no idea if and only a little confidence that the "Tea Party" movement actually will adopt the "get out of my bedroom" plank. Some Tea Partygoers might be convinced by the arguments above, some might blink and stutter, and others will be reminded of how much they loved the government when their guys were in charge. Whether they start advocating marriage freedom will be an indication of how much they actually believe in personal freedom and Government restraint.

Stay "tuned" for more on Marriage Freedom...