The Cavalier Daily
Serving the University Community Since 1890

Playing politics with gay marriage

THE GAY marriage debate consistently generates more heat than light, even in the pristine intellectual oases that are America's college campuses. Like most conflicts in American politics today, this one is surrounded by bad arguments and even worse name-calling on both sides, with little hope of resolution in the foreseeable future. Also like most of today's political controversies, the brouhaha over gay marriage demonstrates just how utterly ridiculous and unprincipled our nation's two major parties have become. In a cheap attempt to score political points with gay marriage opponents, Republicans have thrown the ideals of federalism and limited government to the wind. At the same time, a pandering flock of Democrats has abandoned social liberalism and shamelessly joined ranks with those who want to interfere with the personal lives of gays and lesbians.

Bitter political controversies are often the direct result of the over-involvement of government in the private lives of individual citizens, and the gay marriage conflict is no different. Frankly, it is none of the government's business who loves whom or who marries whom. Love and marriage are purely personal matters concerning private individuals. In a free society, private citizens are left alone to pursue happiness however they wish, so long as they don't interfere with the rights of anybody else.

Under a sane political system, the state would have nothing to do with marriage as such. Legal issues like child custody, inheritance and insurance claims could easily be resolved through ordinary private contracts, leaving romantic and religious concerns squarely in the private realm. Unfortunately, however, today's political climate is anything but sane.

Last week, President Bush proposed an alteration of our federal Constitution when he announced his support for an amendment banning gay marriage. In taking this drastic step, he didn't even pay lip service to the traditional Republican principles of limited government and federalism. The idea that state sovereignty should be largely respected has been a staple of federalist Republican thought for decades. This doctrine of federalism recognizes that people in different areas of the country hold largely differing values, from California liberalism to Alabama conservatism. As such, Republicans have always argued that it makes sense to let Californians and Alabamans live under their own locally tailored legal codes. But now, when Bush and his supporters see the opportunity to use the federal government to impose their particular legislative agenda on the states, federalism suddenly goes out the window ­-- so much for that principle.

But as bad as Bush's position on gay marriage has been, the Democrats have been much worse. They are supposed to be the party of civil rights and civil liberties, fighting to liberate oppressed groups and all that other mumbo jumbo they claim to care about. They're supposed to be for gay rights. But, even on the basis of their own questionably progressive standards, they have failed miserably on this issue. John Kerry, John Edwards, Richard Gephardt and Howard Dean all vocally opposed gay marriage during primary season. Whether they were motivated by their true feelings on gay marriage or simply by pure political expediency, their positions demonstrated a glaring difference between the walk and the talk of the members of the Democratic Party. Even though they might talk a good game of fighting for equal rights, in the end they're just another political party, and they're willing to sacrifice their principles -- and their constituents' freedoms -- at the altar of public opinion.

It doesn't matter whether you think gay marriage is right or wrong, normal or disgusting. In a nation that respects individual liberty, it is not the role of government to favor one personal lifestyle over another. As long as people do not directly harm one another, the way they live their lives should be left up to them, free from the interference of authority. In this way, society can accommodate the broadest range of individual personalities within a stable framework of law and order. But of course, Democrats and Republicans don't care about any of that. They just want your vote.

Anthony Dick's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at adick@cavalierdaily.com.

Local Savings

Comments

Latest Video

Latest Podcast

Ahead of Lighting of the Lawn, Riley McNeill and Chelsea Huffman, co-chairs of the Lighting of the Lawn Committee and fourth-year College students, and Peter Mildrew, the president of the Hullabahoos and third-year Commerce student, discuss the festive tradition which brings the community together year after year. From planning the event to preparing performances, McNeil, Huffman and Mildrew elucidate how the light show has historically helped the community heal in the midst of hardship.