Endorsement is a Judgement

It’s not that I take much of an interest in the Miss USA pageant, but I found it interesting that so many people are saying Miss California failed to win the crown because she said she believed that marriage is between a man and a woman. She was booed for her answer. It all goes back to the idea that the popular answer to any question is necessarily the right one.

Now, my primary purpose in writing, as anyone who has had even a passing interest in this blog understands, is to talk about preserving liberty. I have had person after person ask me how, if my prevailing ideology is freedom, I can be opposed to gay marriage. I suppose it’s finally time to explain why it is simply not a freedom issue (except in reverse).

Whenever a policy question involves the rights of government vs the rights of people, I will ALWAYS side with the people. It’s very simple, I trust your ability to decide what to do with your life, talents, and resources more than I trust the government’s. In fact, whenever possible, I believe the government should have NOTHING to do with your life.

Ask me if I believe that it should be against the law to engage in gay activities. Of course not! Whatever someone wants to do in his/her private life is none of the government’s business. Now ask me whether the government should endorse homosexuality. Of course not! It is a moral decision that the government, being separate from church, should not have anything to do with. We’re not talking about whether someone has “freedom” to do what they want. We’re talking about whether the government should license and certify those moral decisions they choose to make.

So why does the government license marriage at all? Well, there is a historical context to that. Once upon a time it was considered common sense that the traditional family was good for society. The government then licensed and certified marriage as an encouragement to an institution which benefited all society through its existence. Now, it’s no longer common sense. We have all kinds of scientific evidence that the traditional family is beneficial to society. We know that it reduces crime, increases education and promotes industry. We know that it helps to reduce welfare dependence, increases life span, and makes people happier. But, we have also evolved to the point where it is no longer okay to say that the traditional family is good for society. So we must ask ourselves whether, if our moral standing has changed so we no longer feel that a traditional family is best for society, there is any reason for the government to license marriage at all? I don’t know the answer to that. Of course, I do not hold to the idea that it’s wrong to argue the societal benefits of the family.

But one thing is for certain: licensing gay marriage is not a freedom issue. It’s an endorsement issue. The scary thing is that if we allow it to become a freedom issue, it will facilitate the further government intrusion into our lives. How long until the government decides that churches who do not perform gay marriage ceremonies are discriminatory and must loose their non-profit status? How long until, like they did with the boy scouts, government starts dictating religion? You see, when you say that the government must endorse (license and certify) gay marriage, you invite the government to tell us what is and isn't moral. Once that happens, we will have more government in our lives than ever before. Of course, that's the direction we've been heading for a long time. It's just a direction that I ideologically cannot support. There is something fundamentally wrong with the idea that freedom must be legislated. By it's definition, freedom is the absence of legislation.