Dave Easterly’s Bravo Sierra Blog

The “Gay Marriage” debate in our local fish-wrap newspaper…

So here I sit, reading a big, drawn out “back and forth” between two people – both of whom I respect very much and consider dear friends – on each side of an issue that probably won’t be decided anytime before I get ready for retirement. On the left is the always articulate and extremely bright and logical Mr. J.A. and on the religious right is the remarkably principled, honest, and sincere Mr. R.M.. I don’t think it is necessary to point out to you, gentle reader, upon which side of this divisive issue these two fine gentlemen land. And so… I submitted a response that is SURE to anger the “social” conservatives because it doesn’t condemn gay marriage and will BEYOND DOUBT infuriate the Left Wing because it doesn’t make guarantees of special protections for a minority. Yet I think my response is perhaps UNIQUELY moderate. Perhaps you, kind reader, will share with me YOUR thoughts?

Anyway – Here goes:

***UPDATE – The local paper censors apparently felt that my response to this discussion wasn’t worthy of being approved for the comments section of their website (magicvalley.com) so here is the only place you’ll see my little rant… ***

I consider myself both a very conservative person AND a completely non-religious person. As such, I find it difficult to understand the willingness of other conservatives to attempt to impose a specific version or interpretation of morality upon others. Any attempt to legislate something that reserves a right for a specific group of consenting adults and denies that same right to some OTHER consenting adults – no matter what the difference or distinction between those groups – diminishes the freedom of us all. After all, who is to say that some day you or I won’t be in a minority that is similarly denied a basic right?

The argument that somehow these couples being able to declare themselves “legally married” somehow diminishes more traditional marriages also strikes me as a reflection upon the marriages only of those who use that baseless and illogical claim to defend their (usually purely religious and dogmatic) position. Two men or two women having a ceremony or getting a piece of “official” paper to show their love and commitment to one another certainly hasn’t diminished MY ‘traditional’ marriage to my lovely and wonderful wife! If it diminishes your marriage, well that would be your own problem and not one that should be put in the hands of politicians! I mean, look at how horribly they screw everything ELSE up! The worst thing that could happen to the institution of marriage (‘traditional’ or otherwise) is to get politicians even MORE involved so they can make it as broken and messed up as everything else touched by their incompetence.

I say 100% removal of the state (i.e. all government, all levels – not just the individual 50 states) from marriage is the right answer. Churches that want to have gay weddings will have their patrons and those who refuse will have theirs. And if non-religious, secular-minded folks want to tie the knot then a civil ceremony would be a “contractual agreement” between those legally able to enter in to contracts, thus ending the completely unfounded and unrealistic “What next? Marrying your pets or a baby?” nonsense because NEITHER of these can enter into a contract.

Only a few simple rules of equality and respect should apply – Gay people should NOT be able to FORCE anyone who doesn’t want to recognize their type of marriage in to accepting it… And if people don’t want to recognize ‘straight’ marriage as a grounds for special privileges then the same rule and EQUAL treatment should apply. For example, an insurance company that wants to recognize gay couples’ marriages can give them the “family coverage” deal that straights get or NOT. Even the insurance companies that don’t offer “family coverage” to gay couples could and mostly WOULD still offer each partner separate INDIVIDUAL policies, so nobody is DENIED anything! Those who do offer the better coverage get the gay couples’ money and business. The other companies miss out. If it turns out that on average gay people eat healthier, take better care of themselves, and are more physically fit (not trying to play on a stereotype, but just making an example) then the free market might determine that it _could_ be CHEAPER to insure a gay couple and so they and their customers win in the long run. If that isn’t the case, it just isn’t the case. But if rates go UP for the straights because of “those darned salad-eatin’, gym-goin’ gays” then us straight people have NO legitimate reason to complain! I would call that fair and equal to all, wouldn’t you?

Also – we should either give every domestic partner couple regardless of gender or “on paper” marital status the same tax breaks OR _nobody_ should get them. 100% total equality!

If people could accept that sort of compromise I think we’d all argue less and spend more time getting along and solving BIGGER issues like getting rid of our incompetent politicians, restoring our Constitutional Republic to a proper working order, shrinking the size and expense of runaway Big Government, fixing our economy, and making sure our nation has a future better than its present. Sadly, I don’t see it happening any time soon…