What Is Conservative About The Defense Of Marriage Act?

November 26, 2009

We would like to pose a friendly question to our conservative friends, Tea Party friends, and Republican friends (none mutually exclusive).

What is conservative about the Defense of Marriage Act?

Let’s frame the question this way:  One of the most significant undercurrents in the Tea Party movement is the desire to throw off the shackles of the “Nanny State,” which now claims authority to instruct “free” citizens on such constitutional imperatives as what we can screw into our lamps, how much water we are allowed to use to flush waste from our toilets, and soon, whether or not we will receive approval for a medical procedure or treatment.

What could possibly be more Nanny than turning to the government to regulate personal relationships?

For many of us in the Tea Party movement, this is not a gay rights issue. This is a statist issue.

Yes, if the government got out of the business of regulating private relationships, and simply acted as record keeper of contractual legal partnerships agreed to by all parties involved, there might be partnerships that make some people uneasy.

Many of us would argue that it is far more preferable to suffer the potential variables of unregulated relationships, be they between homosexuals, heterosexuals, or multiple partners, than to empower the nanny state in any way. And again, what could possibly be more empowering for the nanny state than to be begged to define acceptable relationships?

Would anyone’s church/synagogue/mosque sanctioned marriage be any less real or meaningful if the government were not required to give approval?

Is heterosexuality and morality so fragile that it cannot survive without the warm embrace of the all knowing government?

If the government got out of the relationship regulation industry, almost everybody would win. Gay people would win because in a land where the government doesn’t get to have a say in our personal relationships, they’ll have all the same rights as anyone else.

For those of us who believe government is out of control in its attempt to regulate every aspect of our existence, dis-empowering the government’s involvement in our personal lives would help set boundaries on an institution that increasingly recognizes no boundary over our personal lives and decisions.

For Republicans, getting the government out of the marriage business would destroy one of the most effective wedge issues employed by Democratic Socialist Progressives who use it to further divide conservatives, and the nation at large.

In fact, the biggest loser in the proposed scenario would be the Progressive movement. It’s worth considering on that basis alone.

Back to our original question though with the above thoughts in mind, in a world where we should be fighting to halt the onslaught of an increasingly obtrusive federal government, how in the world is it conservative to support a marriage act of ANY kind?

Tags: , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to What Is Conservative About The Defense Of Marriage Act?

  1. Douglas on November 26, 2009 at 6:20 am

    well, isn’t DOMA just supposed to prevent the application of the interstate commerce rationale as it applies to marriage?

    Since all 50 have a common definition of certain marriages, but not of others?

    I’m pretty sure there are more than a few objectionable portions of DOMA,(it was written by legislators.) but it’s basic goal is to not require states to recognize another states definition of marriages outside of it’s own definition.

    I say just get rid of ANY marriage legislation and benifit.

  2. BackwardsBoy on November 26, 2009 at 11:33 am

    It’s not so much that the defense of marriage is a conservative issue, it’s the framing of the question by the leftists to paint us as the enemy. This issue was framed by them, not us.

    Not too long ago, this was a moot point. Everyone knew (and acted on the knowledge) that a family consisting of a mother and a father was the bedrock of civilization. No one gave it a second thought. But the forces that seek to destroy not only our country but our souls began to advance the lunatic fringe of thinking and logic into our mainstream culture. Now, if you support what is still normal, you’re somehow painted as a close-minded bigot with a heart full of hatred.

    Such overreaction is laughable. It seems there are a lot of people out there who think you hate them if you disagree with them, or there’s somehow something wrong with you. Or you have some unjustified fear. Just because I don’t care for rutabaga, and therefore don’t eat it, doesn’t mean I’m afraid of it.

  3. Bob on November 26, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    I think the act is a reaction to judges somehow finding in certain states’ constitutions a nebulous right for people of the same gender to marry.

  4. Sully on November 27, 2009 at 12:26 pm

    Gay marriage has become a giant red herring issue. I think that the government should have no say on the issue and it should be left up to the individual churches to decide what is best for their congregations.

    At most, the government should simply recognize civil unions with marriage being included as a form of civil union.

    There are clearly those on both sides who would rather have the argument than the solution. Both use the argument to demonize each other and both are intolerant of dissent.

    The Massachusetts supreme court decision to allow gay marriage without a vote created a national backlash that would not have happened if the law was voted on by the state legislature or citizens of the state as a ballot question.

    What it was in reality was a bunch of cowardly politicians with higher aspirations didn’t want their names anywhere near a piece of legislation about gay marriage. The pressure was on the supreme court to take the problem off their hands even though it was clearly not the job of the court to create law.

    In a twist of irony, the one gay member of the court wrote the dissent pointing out that it is the job of the legislature to make law.

  5. Tea Time on November 27, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    I will give you a reason that no religion or belief system invented. It is called BIOLOGY. Man + woman = CHILD. The state has an interest in THIS combination and none other. I’ve visited this ground before, and destruction of the family unit and stay at home parents is bad for everyone.

    http://www.foundingbloggers.com/wordpress/2009/06/exactly-right-about-gay-marriage/#comment-40619

    If you want to get rid of THE MOST INVASIVE form of government and shrink government as well as take away the indoctrination system of the LEFT, then go after socialized, institutionalized, gov’t schools and bring families back together. That is where the nanny state begins, it is the habit we all can’t shake, and we are paying the consequences of not educating our own.

  6. Hood on December 14, 2009 at 4:40 pm

    My stance on this is souly about the fact that human behavior and therefore human sexual behavior is in part a part of nurture not just nature. If you agree with this then there is very little wiggle room for argument.
    Adaption laws have a large amount to do with marriage status. And since I believe sexuality can be affected by what children are shown and taught at young developmental stages, I cannot justify giving people with sexual deviations children to train in their life outlook. If science were to prove otherwise my view would change but until it is the risk is too great.

TEACHING RADICAL

Jon David Kahn “American Heart”



Links