Louis Vuitton and Pink Chiffon: Why Conservatives Should Support Gay Marriage

June 4, 2004

There are few issues in American life that can make seemingly normal people turn dippy on a dime -- and since Justin Timberlake hasn’t disrobed any member of the Jackson family of late -- the never ending saga over gay marriage has stepped up to fill the void.

Like most conservatives, I’ve always believed that when it comes to protecting liberty the following rules apply: (1) individuals know better than politicians, (2) the states know better than the feds and (3) those who think that the Constitution should grow like Topsy are always wrong. Unfortunately, when it comes to gay marriage many conservatives suddenly develop amnesia. It’s the only issue that I know of that can make committed Republicans get down on their hands and knees and beg for government regulation. Liberals from coast to coast should take these revelations as a direct assault on their livelihood – if Republicans are going start legislating the excruciating minutia of every day life, what use will the country have for Democrats?

Instead of assuming that legalized marriage between homosexuals would lead to an increased amount of open bars and country club dinners in August, some social conservatives are giving hysterical predictions of societal chaos.

Consider some of the following quotes:

While pushing a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage Colorado Republican Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave frets, “If we redefine marriage, anything goes…You could allow polygamy, group marriage.”

Republican New Hampshire state Representative Bob Letourneau says that things aren’t relative in the Granite State, “We do not allow cousins to marry in New Hampshire…you cannot marry your sister or brother, and we don’t allow blind people to drive.” How novel.

But the best quote comes from Nicholas DiMarzio, the Catholic bishop of Brooklyn, who ponders, “Why can’t we have marriages between people and pets?” Hmm, I think a better question would be ‘what is wrong with relationships (that include marriage) between consenting adults?’ But the powers that be in the Catholic Church may not be the best ones to answer that little mystery.

Based on these prognostications you’d think that allowing gays to engage in holy matrimony would result in a mad rush of homosexual Mormons wishing to wed multiple dogs that may or may not be from the same litter.

These arguments are total fallacies. Legalizing gay marriage is as likely to lead to polygamy, incest and bestiality as it is to bring earthquakes, peace in the Middle East and a reunification of Ike and Tina Turner.

A marriage is simply a contract between two consenting adults, who both agree to the terms. These agreements happen every day in a variety of forms and rarely need the consent of politicians, the clergy or Fred Phelps.

Look at it this way: If Kobe Bryant decided to re-sign with the Lakers, you wouldn’t expect him to need Cardinal Roger Mahoney’s permission. (Although, if more allegations of sexual assault emerge against the NBA superstar, the good Cardinal could provide some helpful tips on how to quietly transfer him to another team.)

Why should homosexuals be treated any differently?

Banning gay marriage has nothing to do with discriminating against homosexuals, social conservatives say -- It’s just about ‘protecting the institution of marriage.’ And thank God for that! You never know when Al Gayda is going to strike next. If the federal government wasn’t so successful at ending poverty and drug addiction, I’d really be worried!

Let’s be honest, if the do-gooder crowd was truly interested in ‘protecting marriage’ you’d think that they would want to make getting married easier and getting divorced harder. Why not criminalize adultery? I’d love to see Bill Clinton sign that “Defense of Marriage Act.” Or how about prohibiting divorce? Congressman Ken Calvert (R-CA) could sponsor that amendment – he has some experience in that department. And if they ever get really serious about saving the institution, they can always ban Elizabeth Taylor from ever exchanging nuptials again. The possibilities are endless.

In reality, this movement is not about protecting marriage – it is about a majority of Americans being grossed out by the thought of two men kissing. I call it the ‘ew factor.’ But there are a lot of things out there that make us wince, yet we don’t prohibit them by law. Many people would be disgusted if they saw two dwarfs making out – but that doesn’t mean we should prohibit Gary Bauer from getting married. Besides, don’t our legislators have taxes to cut, wars to win and worthless social programs to slash?

Americans should always be careful before giving the government and clergy control over private agreements between private parties. After all, if conservatives are willing to give Big Brother the power to tell you who you can or can’t marry, why get upset when liberals want to dictate what your salary should be, what you should pay for rent or whether or not you really need your sports utility vehicle? You’re either for big, intrusive government or you aren’t.

Conservatives are better than this. We know that power is a zero-sum game – when you give power to the government you take it away from individuals. And, if we don’t trust the government to deliver the mail why would we give them the power to determine who we sleep next to?

Let’s leave the arranged marriages up to Aztec chiefs and Hollywood reality show producers – where they belong.

John Phillips

DISCUSS THIS IN THE FORUM!