Governor Rick Perry of Texas said gay marriage should be an issue left to the states to decide for themselves, a surprising and refreshing dose of libertarianism from a presidential campaign that often sees social conservatives pretending to be small government Republicans while pushing for expansion in every area they don’t like in order to control it.
Of course, Perry’s remarks didn’t escape the notice of professional wet-blanket Rick Santorum who, absent of any real stance on issues of substance, leads his campaign with social issues like gay marriage. As usual, the old canards come flying out in full force on Santorum’s Twitter.
I’m so tired of this argument, I could scream, but let’s answer it once and for all.
Yes.
Yes. It would allow states to define marriage how they see fit, and deny or allow that privilege to anyone at their whim under the penalty of being booted by the voters who matter most, their own, rather than having to answer to national voters and federal elections that try to set a one-size-fits-all policy for the entire country.
So yes, in the final analysis, you could theoretically have marriage between men and dogs, marriage between adults and twelve year olds, and a fantastic relationship between one man and a litter of goats.
And the question is, so what?
Santorum’s position, like that of many social conservatives is predictable.
1. Once you allow a man or woman to marry someone of the same sex, that will instantly devolve the institution to the point where suddenly people could marry inanimate objects and lower members of the animal kingdom.
2. That doing so would somehow cheapen the bond and vow taken to someone’s own wife or husband.
The first point is obviously ridiculous fear mongering, but let’s acquiesce the point just for arguments’ sake. Let’s say that every one is allowed to marry anyone or anything, and that because of that, the whole system cheapens the definition of marriage. I won’t even bring the argument of how needing state endorsement for marriage even if it’s in the eyes of God cheapens it down to a government clerical function; that’s so obvious that even the social conservatives won’t touch it. Let’s just say that the argument of “other people are not respecting the institution so it’s weakened for those who do” just doesn’t fly.
When I got married I swore an oath before God and 130 witnesses that I would love, honor, and cherish my wife for the rest of our lives. I didn’t take an oath that I would love her as long as my neighbors loved each other, that my marriage would hinge on whether or not gays could marry, or whether or not a man could marry three women. None of that came into effect as I vowed before God that I would maintain my obligations in marriage until the day I died. If the world ended tomorrow for 99% of the population and we resorted to cannibalism, I’d still be married to my wife because that’s my vow. If the other folks left decided they were married, it wouldn’t lessen my committed to my wife.
See how that works?
And if polygamy is something a state wants, they can have it if the state wants it. If they want ancestral marriages, they can have it. That’s why we have states. If we just passed every law for every state based on what the country wanted, we’d fail to have a Republic. Added to that the fact that the Constitution grants no power over marriage to the Federal Government unless you stretch the “general welfare” clause to an inconceivably wide path that includes anything the government wants as long as it’s “good for you” is something we should consider. Marriage is the prerogative of the state, as are its requirements, just as it should be. The citizens of New York have decided gay marriage is something they want. It was decided legitimately through lobbying, electing amicable officials, and making sure that people who pledged to support it were put into office. That doesn’t mean the people of Pennsylvania (Santorum’s home state) are obligated to do anything, or even to recognize those marriages, but in the end, New York hasn’t influenced Pennsylvania, and Pennsylvania hasn’t influenced New York. Their respective laws are their respective laws and that’s that.
If you believe in your heart of hearts that there’s anything wrong with that, then you’re not a federalist, and you’re certainly not fit to call yourself a conservative or constitutionalist because that position is the most pure example of federalism you’ll ever see: states choosing the laws they want that best benefit their citizens.
Santorum would do well to stop exaggerating the point and take a lesson in federalism. Might I suggest a phenomenal book on that very topic?