Conservatives Should Support Obama Pt 2: Marriage
Article Tools
-
5
Liked it 
Subscribe to RSS
Conservatives support the rights of the individual over the power of the State. They also say they support keeping the state out of our private lives and our places of worship. This is nowhere more true than with the issue of marriage. If this is the case, they should support the Democratic Party and elect Senator Obama.
Conservatives support the rights of the individual over the power of the State. They also say they support keeping the state out of our private lives and our places of worship. If this is the case, they should support the Democratic Party and elect Senator Obama.
Marriage
Marriage, in the United States is a dual function instrument. On the one hand, it is a contract between two consenting people above the age of majority (or with parental consent) sanctioned by the State, just as any other contract is sanctioned by the State and protected by law.
On the other hand, it is, to many people, a religious instrument, a union of two people, joined together by faith for the purpose of creating a family environment. Many, if not most, of the religious community consider that a marriage is, by definition, the union between a man and a woman.
The Dilemma
Many Conservatives see a dilemma in the national discussion about homosexual marriage that simply does not exist. For social conservatives, especially those of a Christian persuasion, there is no question that the power of the State should be used to enact laws that define a marriage as between a man and a woman. For those Conservatives with a more libertarian inclination, it smacks of hypocrisy to suggest that the power of the State be used to enforce a law that essentially strips the right of free association from a group of individuals, no matter how small.
From a Liberal perspective, this issue is a non-issue. The conundrum is not difficult to address, it is very, very simple. Do not use the power of the State to force anyone to do anything on this issue. That’s it.
We’ve heard arguments from Conservatives that the power of the State, especially the Federal government, should not be used to force the several states to impose laws that support abortion rights, yet these same Conservatives support a constitutional amendment that would force the states to recognize as legal only those marriages that were between a man and a woman. It doesn’t make any sense.
The Candidates
Here is one place where Senator John McCain deserves respect for consistency. Senator McCain has gone against the idea, which runs strongly through many of the most ardent supporters of the Conservative agenda, that the Federal government must support marriage by passing laws or a constitutional amendment.
On the other hand, he does support the idea that marriage can only be between a man and a woman and says on his web-site:
“The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.”
The problem with this, of course, is that his belief system is such that it basically ignores the fact that there is no data to support the claim that only a “one man and one woman” family can provide a role in “shaping, stabilizing and strengthening communities and our nation.”
Further, Senator McCain has said that he would nominate judges who will not “legislate from the bench”, which is yet another lie that the Conservatives have been force-fed by their leaders. We will address this issue in a later column, but Senator McCain must realize that failure to support the laws of the land by ignoring them is far more than legislating from the bench.
Senator Obama, on the other hand, supports strong civil unions and has repeatedly voted against such laws as the Defense of Marriage Act and the Constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage. He has said:
“It is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I come from that in part out of personal experience. When you’re a black guy named Barack Obama, you know what it’s like to be on the outside. And so my concern is continually to make sure that the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for all people.
That’s why I opposed DOMA in 2006 when I ran for the Senate. That’s why I am a strong supporter not of a weak version of civil unions, but of a strong version, in which the rights that are conferred at the federal level to persons who are part of the same sex union are compatible.
When it comes to federal rights, the over 1,100 rights that right now are not being given to same sex couples, I think that’s unacceptable, and as president of the United States, I am going to fight hard to make sure that those rights are available.”
He also supports turning the issue over to the states, which is, in my opinion, problematic due to the “full faith and credit” clause in the Constitution, but I am not a lawyer.
Conclusion
As a Conservative, if you support the rights of the individual over the power of the State, it would make sense if you didn’t support either of these candidates. However, Senator McCain has essentially said that he will use his nominating power to nominate judges that will use their position to force people to abide by laws that do not recognize their rights as individuals.
However, Senator Obama is addressing the issue in the only way that makes any sense, given the religious climate in this country. For me, I would prefer if we recognize what Senator Obama has also said:
“It is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I don’t think that the church should be making these determinations when it comes to legal rights conferred by the state. I do think that individual denominations have the right to make their own decisions as to whether they recognize same sex couples. My denomination, United Church of Christ, does. Other denominations may make a decision, and obviously, part of keeping a separation of churches and state is also to make sure that churches have the right to exercise their freedom of religion.”
And I think that is far closer to what he truly believes. If that’s the case, Conservatives should be voting for Senator Obama. He wants the government out of our places of worship and out of our bedrooms and Senator McCain doesn’t. It’s really that simple.
**I am not employed by or affiliated with the Obama For President campaign. All opinion and commentary on here is my own and may or may not reflect the opinions of Senator Obama or Senator Biden.
2 Comments
We marry because we want to declare to the world that our chosen partner is the one whom we intend to spend our living days with. Hopefully that declaration goes for the physical, spiritual, emotional and intellectual parts of us, although the notion that the full satisfaction of all those entities can be found in a single human being is dangerous and unrealistic. Why the government has to have a stake in that relationship is beyond me.
That it wants to legislate who can and who cannot form these partnerships leaves me dumbfounded!
This nation, the supposed beacon of liberty to the world, is attempting to delineate the confines of a ‘legal’ marriage. For what purpose, one might ask? What right does the government have to limit my marriage choices? Surely a good libertarian or republican would baulk at any intrusion of the secular government into his personal affairs. Yet today a presumed majority of Americans still support the withholding of human rights by legislators wanting to define the word marriage in a authoritarian fashion.
Marriage is a Christian sacrament, not a legal institution. For decades the Roman Church refused to marry outside it’s communion. Let them continue to set their own standards. That’s the essence of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state! If a wedding was proclaimed by the participants alone, the government’s only role would be to recognize the partnership and confer the universal benefits and responsibilities occasioned by the arrangement. The end.
The word marriage, as with any other word, is defined by usage not by law. Let’s face it, if the government authored the dictionary then the words ‘for the people, by the people’ would quickly have the originally intended interpretation replaced! If gay people choose to declare a permanent alliance in communities of faith and fellowship that support such arrangements then the government’s role must be simply to accept that right with respect and let them name it as they wish.
To all people, of all political parties I say: Let the people declare who they want to share their lives with and let the people claim the inalienable rights that are guaranteed by the constitution – and thankfully still documented by Webster! Whoever you are, if you believe in liberty and justice for all, vote NO on Florida’s Amendment 2 this fall. Do not abdicate to a secular body the power to dictate the boundaries of a spiritual union. Unfortunately voting ‘no’ will not permit the State’s recognition of committed gay relationships but it will prevent new obstacles to their future acceptance. At this time such rights are already ‘verboten’ in this bastion of faux-freedom that we live in.
Many more years of discrimination are likely until Florida and these United States finally reenact the tenets of our forefathers who declared that our inalienable rights included equality and the pursuit of happiness! My friends Bruce and John, who just celebrated 50 years of unacceptable fidelity, are holding out hope for future generations – they will likely live and die as illegals even after a lifetime of public service to America – the land of the ‘Waiting To Be’ Free.
Geoff Maul – http://www.geoffsjourneys.blogspot.com
That was one of the most pathetic “articles” I have ever read. you need to educate yourself. If you want to preserve your ability to exercise your inherent rights without interference, support Ron Paul & those like him.