I have a much greater propensity to read articles and studies from think tanks than I do when it comes to reading [political] blogs. Analysis and expectations, even when not libertarian, are much higher in the think tank world. However, there are a few blogs that I decide to read. One such blog is Heathen Republican. Although I am neither a Republican nor a secularist, I nevertheless have a great of respect for the blogger because of his adherence to sound, reasoned argumentation.
That is why I was surprised by his initial blog entry as to why he was against same-sex marriage. When push came to shove, opponents of same-sex marriage never had a rational argument for such opposition, which explains my bewilderment. As of today, he has since redacted such argumentation and has taken a pro-gay marriage stance. I find this to be an important step, especially since support for gay marriage and conservatism are not mutually exclusive.
I want to dissect his initial opposition, as well as add to why he ultimately made the right decision in supporting same-sex marriage.
On the plus side, he immediately eliminated the "because the Bible tells me so" argument. However, he went into arguing about equal rights are still assured because no one, gay or straight, has the right to marry someone of the same sex. As a libertarian, my primary argument has been embodied within contract rights, which you'd think a conservative would share similar, if not identical, sentiments. Upon addressing the equality issue, the Heathen Republican framed the equal rights issue in terms of disparate impact. My approach to it is different, but disparate impact is an equally valid argument. He uses the example of a hypothetical ban of entering Catholic churches. Although the ban technically applies to everyone, it is most detrimental to Catholics, since they are the ones practicing Catholicism. Same goes for same-sex marriage. Although technically everyone is banned from a same-sex marriage in most states, it does the most damage to homosexuals since they are the ones that would derive benefit from such an arrangement.
He then brings up that "marrying for love" is an insufficient argument because if love were the qualifier for a legal marriage, then polygamy and pedophilia would have to be legalized, as well. I've already addressed the non-analogous nature of this slippery slope argument. The Heathen Republican makes a very similar argument to my own, and concludes with the following comment: "If society is allowed to define marriage, why can't we choose to say that marriage requires an exclusive commitment between two, unrelated consenting adults? Sure, it doesn't have the simplicity and elegance of 'between one man and one woman,' but it does remove an inappropriate restriction that unfairly harms homosexuals." Very eloquently said!
The Heathen Republican also stated that he hesitated to change his views because of a conservative bias towards "tradition over change," and that this sentiment was the sole obstacle. I am glad that he re-visited the argument and realized that everything else considered, an argumentum ad antiquitatem cannot stand on its own as a well-reasoned argument. It takes an individual of strong character to admit that they were wrong and change their views accordingly, which is a character trait I admire. Kudos to the Heathen Republican!
I hope for a future in which a good majority of Republicans and conservatives can come to similar, cogent reasons for supporting same-sex marriage.
12-9-2014 Addendum: Slate published an overall convincing argument about conservatism and same-sex marriage.
Thanks for the comments and the link out.
ReplyDelete