Sometime next month, the GOP-controlled legislature in New Hampshire will take up consideration of a bill to repeal marriage equality that was introduced when the state was controlled by Democrats. One of the fascinating features of this proposal has been how much opposition has emerged from within the Republican / conservative camp. An October opinion poll showed that over 60% of NH voters opposed repeal - and that included almost half of Republican voters. Some prominent Republicans have joined a coalition speaking up to preserve marriage equality, and the state’s Young Republicans have declared themselves against repeal.
An opinion piece in the Nashua Telegraph by Travis Blais provides an articulate, thoughtful exposition of the conservative case for gay marriage - in New Hampshire, or elsewhere. First, he discusses the fundamental principle of individual freedom, then continues with the value of marriage equality in contributing to social stability and prosperity:
Opponents of same-sex marriage speak of its downsides, including the devaluation of traditional character values, further instability in the nuclear family and concern for where the slippery slope will slip next, say, toward polygamy. At the same time, however, the animus against homosexual orientation and relationships inflicts its own set of harms that are more tangible, direct and immediate.
Otherwise innocent individuals are subjected to violence and bullying, depression, estrangement from family and society, self-destructive behavior and suicide. These are our friends, neighbors, colleagues and family members; they don’t deserve to live this way.
Not only does the balance of interests not overcome the presumption toward freedom, it points in the opposite direction. Even better, helping our gay fellow citizens be more productive, satisfied and socially constructive doesn’t cost money. It’s fiscally responsible.
The tide is changing more rapidly on this issue than (I would say) any another in American political history. Republicans are increasingly (and very rapidly at that) ‘switching sides’, and only the most vocal and politicized members of the Party (aka-those who want to be visible to tap into certain voting blocks) are standing their ground. The change in support for same-sex marriage in the past two-three years has been quite drastic, and the last year itself has really shown a difference in daily discussions over the issue. This time last year heterosexuals (or even hetero/homosexual mixed gatherings) largely avoided discussion of same-sex unions in personal discussion like the plague; but now it is openly talked about (largely in a favorable light) in interpersonal discussion between individuals and between students and teachers in class (something that was unthinkable 4 years ago. The majority of the sentiment seems to be “I dont see why not”, rather than actual promotion however.
The slippery-slope issues is often scoffed at, yet I think that it is a legitimate issue. After all, the arguments against three people getting married are IDENTICAL to the arguments against gay marriage. I mean, just why is it really that three people cannot be married if they want?
Government subsidized marriage is actually in line with catholic sexual philosphy. State marriage is about producing and raising offspring to propagate society (the state has an interest in such activity which is why it gives economic benefits to married couples to help promote such unions). THis is further proven by the fact that first cousins are generally not allowed to marry each-other, brothers and sisters are forbidden from legal marriage, and why people with certain diseases are forbidden from marrying in certain states (though those laws are largely ignored now). Those people are discriminated against for marriage becuase they are not likely to produce healthy and self-suficient citizens. When couples who defiantly cannot naturally produce children (same-sex couples) are allowed state subsidized marriage, why should the state be allowed do discriminate against a brother and sister who love each-other and want to get married? I think that US government (both forms) needs to clarify the purpose of state marriage and decide if it is for the propagation of society or for the ‘happiness and stability’ of individuals, and then make its laws uniform and consistent according to the stated principle. Meaning: if it is to foster procreation, then only those couples that have the physical capability AND the intent to produce and or raise children should be given state marriage benefits; otherwise, anyone who is of legal age be allowed to marry whomever (even if it is more than one person) they wish, or simply have government remove itself entirely from marriage.
That is, at least, only if you want to have objectivity and consistency in marriage discrimination/equality laws.