The Unspoken Insanity in the Debate About Gay Marriage — by Polydamas
Despite what would appear, on a superficial level, to be two diametrically-opposite world views, both proponents and opponents of gay marriage share an unspoken central axiom. This axiom is that their beliefs require governmental force and coercion behind them. As Robert Heinlein once pithily observed, “Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.” The same observation is equally applicable to almost all other non-religious groups.
Each side in this debate is fighting over the opportunity to tame the 800 lbs. gorilla that is the government and bring it around to its side to serve as its bodyguard and to maul its opponent. Moreover, each side wants the maximal opportunity to gorge itself at the government trough and to send the gargantuan bill to its opponent. This would include government benefits, pensions, insurance plans, welfare, and every other freebie that one person would love to have if someone else had the privilege of paying for it.
On one hand, the proponents of traditional marriage have as their article of faith that the government should support, encourage, and subsidize procreation and child-rearing in a family unit consisting of one male and one female bound to one another by the unbreakable bond of holy matrimony. In other words, they want the government to pay couples to have sex and to raise children. They desire that government endorse their beliefs and sanction any divergent beliefs. They may oppose gay marriage on religious and philosophical grounds, but, also begrudge the notion of having to share the governmental trough with gay people. On the other hand, the proponents of gay marriage have the curious desire to have official governmental approval to engage in the same sexual preferences and practices that gay people would partake in anyway even if government did not approve of them. Aside from any economic considerations of what can be taken from the government trough, much of the allure of gay marriage is rebelliousness and the pleasure of finally obtaining the legal legitimacy which society had previously denied to them. As far as economic benefits, they want to feast at the government trough with the same voracious appetite as the opponents of gay marriage.
The point here is not to argue the perceived morality or immorality of gay marriage, but, rather, to warn both sides about the dangers of inviting government into the private sphere of their lives and letting it regulate who should be marrying whom, why, and how. Neither straight nor gay individuals should be inviting government into their bedroom. They would be far better off not to let government in the door in the first place. Like a self-centered and inconsiderate house guest who does not know when to leave and when to stay out of conversations and matters that do not pertain to him, government can be counted on to inject itself into every available issue and controversy, whether invited or not. The unspoken insanity here is that proponents as well as opponents of gay marriage are convinced that they can use the powers of government to help their cause without suffering the inevitable loss of individual liberty and self-determination and without the officious meddling of bureaucrats. They suffer from the conceit that, at any time, they can stop the intrusion of government and wrest back control over their lives. This is not possible and history shows us otherwise that individual liberties can be lost quickly yet recovered slowly, if ever. People would be very wise to consider two of George Washington’s eminently prescient sayings:
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
and
“The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.”
