Sep 042012
 
Same-sex marriage seems to be an issue in which almost everybody has some vested interest — and for good reason. What may seem like a controversy that simply seeks to define and regulate marriages in America actually has a much stronger current flowing deep beneath its surface.

I’d like to suggest that the real issue lies neither in upholding traditions nor in promoting and celebrating alternative lifestyles. It’s not even about some social normative or ethical classifications. Instead, the rift highlights the fundamental matter of the role of government in the lives of individuals.

If we take a step back and look at the meta-narrative of the debate, we see that we should be asking completely different questions than “what is marriage?” How about “should lawmakers even be able to dictate what is an acceptable formulation of romance and companionship in the first place, or should this topic be considered outside of their realm of legal influence?”

Paradoxically, this entire debacle seems to be the result of left-wing extremists, the very group crying “foul!” today, constantly pushing for more and more centralized federal power. Starting with Franklin Roosevelt — arguably the father of all liberal democrats — and continuing through today, there has been a concerted push to expand the scope of the federal government on the part of most leftist politicians.

For them, this allows for vote-securing manipulations (i.e. social programs, grants and subsidies for certain regions or industries, employment projects, etc).  ”Bestow upon me ___ powers and I’ll be sure to use that capability to scratch your back.” That’s the formula for staying in office and in power.

Unfortunately, this approach to government has resulted in an over-reaching behemoth of a federal government that has been raised solely on steroids and is virtually unrecognizable compared to the constitutional portrait  of a healthy government.

We’ve given away so much of what our liberties entail that we can no longer control this beast with our twine leash; we’re dragged behind its unwieldy path through the fields of its own self-promotion in an injurious blur, all the while thinking that we’ve gotten what we wanted out of it.

Wake up people. We’re the collective dupe.

If we hadn’t allowed and even begged Congress to begin making the majority of our decisions for us, we would not be having this gay marriage debate at all. It would be up to individuals first and localities or states second, but never would it concern the federal government.

Part of the concern with such centralized power is that we have 50 different territories with unique demographics, specific needs, diverse cultural milieus and a variety of solutions to common problems that best fit each state. It is absurd to think that a single decision for such a controversial issue as gay marriage made in Washington will be appropriate simultaneously for California and Alabama.  So why not let each city, county or state make up their mind on what’s optimal for them?

If you’re a proponent of gay marriage, you may want to consider a limited government that can’t tell you one way or the other who you may or may not legally spend the most intimate moments of your life with.

For either position, the lesson is this: when we inflate and centralize the government for what, at the time, seems like our benefit, we ultimately lose control over it.  One day you will likely find yourself at odds with some federal agenda, being coerced, shoved, maybe even punished by the all-powerful federal law. And then you’ll curse the power that you once possessed but tossed away so carelessly. Thus, we are justified in being skeptical of any such entity with the reach and control of our government.

So if you’re tired of being dragged through that field, if you no longer want to be parented by somebody on Capitol Hill, if you think you can make decisions for your own life better than politicians can, if you’re fed up of these unceasing debates, then, for heaven’s sake, don’t feed the beast anymore! It will be too late when the leash is snapped and the creature tramples our liberties once and for all.

 The Gay Marriage Debate: Humble Perspective, Jumbled Directive
80.thumbnail The Gay Marriage Debate: Humble Perspective, Jumbled Directive

About Jason Kincaid

Jason is a returning undergrad studying philosophy. He began working for the Collegian in August of 2012, which is his first position of journalistic contribution. He can be reached at kincaidj@colostate.edu or jasonbuddy@aol.com.

  • http://twitter.com/sookibong TeddyT

    I’m marrying another man this month in New York. You’re saying that I, as a citizen of the United States, should be satisfied knowing that my marriage will not be honored if I decide to move to Pennsylvania?

    You need to hit your history books again. You’d find that the America of “unique territories” has not existed since the failed Articles of Confederation.

    • Jason Kincaid

      Congratulations Teddy. I’m trying to look at this from a non-emotional perspective and say that there’s another side of the story that’s outraged that you’re able to marry another man. The “close-minded” bigot has the right that position in precisely the same way that your view is honored in this country. We can’t please everybody here, so we’re forced to make a choice that will inevitably leave somebody out. Why should that blanket decision cover an entire nation? Lucky you that, during this administration, you’re on the side with the larger vote, but the burden here is on the federal proponent to show why the states’ rights should be nullified in favor of a unified ruling. My big point here was that the “rightness” or “wrongness” of gay marriage is subjective and secondary to the assumption that it needs federal legislating to begin with. What would you say if when there was a more conservative group in power fighting to make your relationship illegal? I imagine you’d be begging for that confederation-style government that would have allowed for at least a few havens for alternative lifestyles rather than painting with such broad strokes as to be a nation perpetually stuck in “either/or” conflicts; tolerance and diversity should extend to governing methods as well as communities and individuals. Oh and Canada, Switzerland and the EU all operate fluidly as confederations.

      • Jason Kincaid

        Also, the Articles of Confederation applied to our country before we’d even made the Louisiana Purchase. Today, we have a far more fragmented culture than in 1777.

  • Andy

    Jason, you really seem to have it out for FDR. Both of the articles I have read by you have taken pot shots at him for essentially brainwashing the American people into becoming dependent on him for social programs, “ensuring” his limitless power. Did FDR sleep with your grandma or something?

  • Jason Kincaid

    I just think FDR has a much larger and more profound legacy than just about any president of the 20th century, and today’s issues can often be traced to his style of politics. I had originally written this week’s article on the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, but it was scrapped last minute. This was a backup article I’d written weeks ago.

  • rakihi

    Jason,

    I don’t think I agree with your premise that the debate over marriage equality has less to do with the right to marry than it does with the proper scope of government. The belief that government should essentially abolish marriage as a legal status remains a fringe view.

    You also warn of what you term “vote-securing manipulations” but here I think you confuse legal equality with broader notions of egalitarianism. Respecting the right to marry cannot be compared to the kind of monetary benefits you mention. Political candidates regularly say, “Vote for me, and I’ll increase funding for _____” The money to increase funding has to come from somewhere. In contrast, protecting one person’s right to marry does not detract from another person’s right to do the same.

    Finally, you wrote:

    “…we have 50 different territories with unique demographics, specific
    needs, diverse cultural milieus and a variety of solutions to common
    problems that best fit each state. It is absurd to think that a single
    decision for such a controversial issue as gay marriage made in
    Washington will be appropriate simultaneously for California and
    Alabama. So why not let each city, county or state make up their mind
    on what’s optimal for them?”

    Substitute the word “integration” for “gay marriage” in your statement. Take a moment and really think about the implications without getting distracted by the side issue of whether race and orientation are analogous.

    The United States is one nation, after all, and not a collection of independent states. Surely Americans deserve to be assured that they do not go from being a parent and spouse, to being single, and then back again as they cross imaginary lines on a highway.

  • Mikhail

    “For them, this allows for vote-securing manipulations (i.e. social
    programs, grants and subsidies for certain regions or industries,
    employment projects, etc). ”Bestow upon me ___ powers and I’ll be sure
    to use that capability to scratch your back.” That’s the formula for
    staying in office and in power.”

    Seriously? Vote securing manipulations? SERIOUSLY?
    How about barring felons and minorities to vote? How about creating loop after loop of bureaucratic tape that people have to get through to vote? How about all these tactics Republicans are unabashedly employing to stop people (mostly democratic voting people) to vote? THAT’S a vote securing manipulation. Not social programs.
    Maybe it’s a federal issue because it’s obvious it should be a nationally recognized thing. What’s good for Alabama may not indeed be good for California, but the only difference between the two is that Alabama has more bigots. So your point is basically “Parts of the country are unfathomably bigoted and that is their deal”. Listen, no. That’s not progress. What if slavery were up to each state? I don’t really want to live in that country.

  • grrr

    its not a matter of the government controlling the rights to love one another. It is merely the inarguable fact that a marriage effects hundreds of desicions. Taxes, loans, health care, adoption, ect ect ect. Would you rather have government re-write each individual law? or give a same-sex couple the same rights as a traditional marriage the same rights. And seeing as we live in America If the Supreme court were to find it unconsititutional to refuse the rights of gays it would protect the rights of gays in all states.