The college democrats and college republicans at Duke have united to stand against Amendment 1 (article here). I am happy that the two parties can come together and agree. I am proud that the young Representatives of our two parties are doing what the adults can not. The statement that was released was interesting for a number of reasons.
The justification for the standing against Amendment 1 is religious freedom and small government. It is stated "because marriage is a deeply personal and spiritual commitment, conferring marriage should be the responsibility of faith communities, families and free organizations of private citizens, not the responsibility of the government". This line shows a libertarian support for marriage equality, the government has no role. In fact it is a religious institution that is responsible for marriage.
There is no mention of any specific religion. I enjoy the following line "families are treated equally, regardless of their status in a religious marriage". A family is not defined by marriage. This is the opposite of how many social conservatives use as reasoning against same sex marriage. They use faith as a reason to stand against amendment 1, "No faith community should ever be required to marry a couple in violation of their conscience." This is clear separation of church and state. Church is not imposing it's views on government and government is not imposing itself on church. This is an argument against Amendment 1 that never mentions any individuals personal stance on same sex marriage. Finally, "it interferes with religious freedom by further entangling the government with religious marriage"
Duke graduate Ron Paul would be proud of this statement.
I wholeheartedly agree, but as we have seen, many conservatives aren't necessarily against governmental control as a whole, only when it interferes with their other values. Legislating marriage somehow doesn't meet these criteria. Unless of course we were to use the frame of a proposed amendment that would legalize marriage between two individuals of the same gender. Then I would suspect we might see the libertarian streak return. Hypocrisy abounds.
ReplyDeleteDaniel
Ian, Thank you for posting this. I am as you know very Republican, however I have been troubled by the Amendment 1. I do not think that people should simply follow their party on this Amendment. I also believe that it doesnt make me any less of a Conservative if I vote against Amendment 1. My opinion regarding marriage is very much a libertarian view. I do not believe that it is the governments role to provide a marriage licence for any type of couple. In fact, I think that the government should be able to provide civil unions for couples but not a marriage licence. If a church organization would like to recognize a couple as being married then that is their role not. My libertarian side sees this Amendment as a way to expand the scope of government.
ReplyDeleteWith all of that said, I was raised a Christian and I do see the importance and seriousness that the Christian conservatives are experiencing. I have understanding for what they believe in. I guess that I will be completely and utterly honest when I explain my next thought...To many Christians they are themselves offended that gay couples would like to use the word "marriage" because they think that many gay people do not even claim to be Christians yet they want to use the christian word, marriage. I don't know if that at all makes sense, it's just what ive heard from some. It's like, they think that gays want to use a word "marriage" that they don't really even believe in from a religious stand point just because it is something that others say they can't have. I think that Christians also believe that they are in a fundamental war, and that they are losing what they hold so dear when problems like this arise. I think they fear that God will be completely absent from America if they don't hold on to a few core things that are so precious to them. This makes them fear the future of this country. They are afraid that if they don't stand strong for the things they believe in now that they won't even be able recognize this country one day.
okay, now that I have probably really offended several people in the class, I must say that I can see both sides of this argument.I do admit that the second stance is very much more theoretical than factual or concrete. I must sum up by saying that this decision is not a party left or party right one, it is a personal decision.
I agree with you, Kelsey, on almost all of that, though in the second part less sympathetically. Good analysis though.
ReplyDeleteI would like to make a point quickly, though, about marriage as being an exclusively Christian or even religious phenomenon. First of all, its not, we see monogamous relationships in every culture regardless of spiritual inclination even back into the day before Christianity existed. While there is something amazing about the connection between lovers, something which many regard as spiritual (and this I dont necessarily disagree with), I think it is a mistake to take one of these most basic human desires and turn it into something dogmatic. It is to take something beautiful and organic and make of it something rigid and prescribed.
Daniel