Is it time for evangelicals to stop opposing gay marriage?

The “question” of gay marriage is actually at least three issues referring to the role of government in three separate activities that I can think of:

1) Marriage as an interpersonal relationship. Two people living together (and sleeping together) over an indefinite period of time. It’s not the government’s business. This isn’t to say that there’s not a moral issue here, it’s just that the moral issue ought not to be decided by legislation. Settle it on the cultural battleground, in the court of public opinion.

There may be a legal question as to whether or not a single-gender household can provide potential adopted children with a proper environment for which to learn and grow. But every Christian needs to work a lot harder to get the traditional marriage success rate well above the miserable 50% or so that it’s at right now. Let’s try to settle this one out of Congress, “there ought to be a law” isn’t the answer for everything.

2) Marriage as an economic contract. Don’t really see where conservative opposition comes in here. Strictly in the sense of offering a bundle of changes to the tax code, if we’re doing it for two consenting adults, why not do it for two other consenting adults as well?

Economic freedom means economic freedom, whether it’s the freedom to invest (your own!) money into silly eco-scams, buy guns, or change your tax bracket around a little. We don’t have to agree with the economic decision, we’re not the ones making it. That’s how liberty works. Maybe we don’t have to call it “marriage”, but in that case just get the law changed so that it says “civil union” for everybody. Marriage isn’t really a legal thing anyway.

3) Marriage as a religious institute. Here is where “there ought to be a law”. It’s HANDS OFF for any lawyer or bureaucrat to try to pass or enforce a law attempting to influence religious practices under the guise of “equal protection” or whatever nonsense they’ll decide to try.

As long as I’m not harming someone (and no, discrimination =/= harm) I and my priest can do whatever we please. Preferably a Constitutional amendment saying so (if necessary, codifying the answer to number 2 as well).

My not so humble opinion. Not trying to sound condescending or arrogant, just the way I see things. Apologies for the wall of text as well

Atlas on November 28, 2012 at 10:31 AM

sharrukin on November 28, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Touched on adoption as part of the spheal on personal relationships. I’d like to see traditional marriage go back to being traditional marriage, the vows are for life, and you don’t back out unless there’s abuse of some kind (in which case you don’t remarry). Then we can start arguing that a developing child needs a role model from each gender to get the different perspectives mom and dad offer on things, and so on and so forth. Gotta fix the rampant divorce problem first though, or else we aren’t gonna win.

The economics side of it right now is pretty much an income merger between two consenting adults, as I understand it at least. With multiple breadwinners even in traditional families now, I don’t see why we shouldn’t just expand the contract (and only the contract!) to include any two consenting adults, and flesh things out on the legal side the way they’re done now for heterosexual cases. I don’t really see an argument in that expansion for polygamy, but if there is one I’ll do some more thunking on this point, perhaps when I’m not at the tail end of an all nighter

I’m sure there’s a huge body of literature supporting the points that marriage and/or marital relations are harmful to the pre-adolescent (and unable-to-consent), the genetically similar, etc. You don’t have the right, and are not at liberty to harm someone else. Period.

Feel free to point out anything else I missed. Gotta have this all straight so I can shut down my lib room-mates.

Atlas on November 28, 2012 at 10:50 AM