Proposition 8 – The Fervor With Gay Marriage – Part II

Image via Wikipedia

Touching up on this topic, I’d like to present some of the list of reasons that are utilized against the legalization of gay marriage:

• The “Un-Natural” Clause – This tends to be pretty popular. Gay/Lesbians that are “allowed” to marry is unnatural due to some arbitrary reason that is decided by a group of people (usually religiously inclined, but other reasons are provided).
• The “States’ Rights” Viewpoint – You’ll find this to be pretty popular with your “Libertarians” in this country. The viewpoint is mainly that the State Government (not the Federal Government) should be the ones to decide this.
• The “Slippery Slope” Argument – Allowing gay marriages will start creating other issues and other “un-natural” acts (stems from bullet point one) such as marrying animals.

Let’s be realistic here and examine these viewpoints and see how badly these “jusifications” fail:

• Un-Natural Clause – We used this to justify not having inter-racial marriages, but remember, there are other items that are considered un-natural (dictated by society or by religion or whatever arbitrary set of rules you want to make your life more difficult with).
• “States’ Rights” – This is an easy one, “States’ Rights” have repeatedly failed when it came to civil rights (slavery, Jim Crow laws, et. al.); don’t get me wrong, the Federal Government has messed up as well (Separate But Equal), but the states will have and will mess it up far worse. Civil rights have been proven to be a Federal issue and a 14th Amendment issue, and the topic of gay marriage is no different.
• Slippery Slope – Now this is just terrible. Anyone can use this argument; it is pretty baseless to begin with. That’s akin to a parent telling their child if studying is missed for one night, you’ll fail all your classes in school and never amount to anything in this world (notice how ridiculous and hyperbolic that sounds?).  The Slippery Slope is typically used when you have absolutely nothing of substance (basically, like all the other excuses) and try to make something from nothing.

More than anything though, why are we legislating such items? Where are the your anti-big government “Libertarians” coming out to shame these types of actions? Simply put, your “Libertarians” like Ron Paul use the “let the States decide” are not for liberty. Legislation of people’s lives at any level of the government (County, State, Federal) is the EXACT definition of Big Government.  How is legislation of a person’s private life and their rights/privileges at the State level more appropriate than the Federal level?  It isn’t is the correct and only answer, history and the example of slavery has proven that point very clearly.  An individual like myself (Classic Liberal) is against legislating morality, and people’s livelihoods (both public and private) as it is none of my business, nor should it be any of yours. Liberty and freedom doesn’t mean to place other in bondage according to your ideals.

The simple litmus test is this. Would you like any outsider dictating your personal life, and dictating with whom you can marry? You don’t? They should mind their own business you say? Well, you’re in the same boat with a lot of others, the difference is, you feel that the same consideration and respect should not be given to those who don’t think/act/behave like you. Take your own advice for once, and remember this, as long as the affairs of others do not violate your civil rights and privileges (hint: gay marriage does not), then you need not be concerned with their affairs and private lives.

– “Classic Liberal”