I've spent the past two weeks drafting a post in response to recent speeches from President Obama and LDS apostle Dallin H. Oaks, with the intent to show how the conservative position on gay marriage can be one of love. It's been quite difficult, but I think I'm gradually getting closer. Becca and I are flying to Princeton in a few weeks to attend a scholarly conference on marriage, so hopefully I'll have more to say about it then.
In trying to understand the issue more fully I've been reading some of the smarter arguments from the proponents of gay marriage—specifically those from Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch. I want to applaud the fact that these two proponents take marriage seriously. They both endorse the idea of a community coming together to celebrate lifelong fidelity, something that is absent when a couple decides to cohabit (an act generally done without formal announcement or open community support). I like their ideas of commitment and responsibility and communal support, in part because these ideas all denote a healthy limitation of individual freedom and rights.
I believe that I'm seeking for a political stance that promotes communal responsibility, but one that also doesn't grant any single group (whether it be a single business or the federal government or one religion) too much power. That's why I also like Rauch's position that the decision of legalizing gay marriage shouldn't go to the national level (which would grant power to the fed); it should remain a state-by-state decision.
A Warning about CBO Scoring
5 hours ago
6 comments:
Jon,
Are you headed to Princeton, NJ? I'm going to grad school at Princeton but have not heard about this marriage conference. Where can I find the details?
-Baxter Oliphant
I have appreciated your recent comments on local decision making addressing local problems. Wouldn't that sometimes allow local majorities to discriminate against local minorities? Particularly when discussing civil rights issues?
I know it's more controversial on the issue of gay marriage but past civil rights debates have sometimes been solved as a result of federal legislation.
Wouldn't otherwise put us in the position of the Confederacy--even if we disagree with slavery, we agree with those states' right to choose the same?
I know several proponents for gay marriage do not want this kind of decision to take place on the federal level. But from what I've read that is a strategic move more than their political ideology.
Baxter,
Good to hear from you, and to find out you're at Princeton, NJ, which is where we're headed. You should look into this conference because I think it'll be quite good, knowing the bit I do about Robert George, and because I'd love to hear what you think about the school. Here's the info.
Let me know if you go.
Anthony,
I don't see the civil rights of the 60s or the contemporary gay marriage debate as the same hurdle that slavery was.
I think that if past civil rights issues had been left to the states then certain states like South Carolina or Alabama would have come around quickly. Perhaps forcing unwilling states to comply just made those states more bitter than they would have been had they come around on their own, but I don't know - I'll have to read more into that.
If it becomes a state issue, I will bet any amount of money that South Carolina will NEVER allow it. Any amount of money.
Post a Comment