In recent years, the LGBT movement has grown large in size, scope and influence. There are countless organizations fighting for gay rights across the nation. In spite of the fact that only 3.4% of population identify as LGBT, a majority of Americans are very supportive of the LGBT community’s campaign.
Most recently, the side fighting for gay rights had a victory in the New York Circuit of Appeals. In a 2-1 decision, it was determined by the justices of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the Defense of Marriage Act was in conflict with the Constitution.
No doubt that the LGBT community rejoices. And without a doubt those who support traditional marriage bolster themselves for what appears to be an impending Supreme Court case.
This is a contentious issue, and both sides pose compelling arguments. If you’re looking for a consensus in the government, think again. President Obama for a long time did not state in certain terms that he supported gay marriage, but was always critical of the DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policies. Earlier this year, Obama stated that he supported gay marriage in an interview with ABC News. Conversely, Governor Romney has been supportive of the traditional definition of marriage, and makes it clear on his website that he supports the definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
But I find myself in a completely different thought process.
I am a protestant, non-denominational Christian. I believe that homosexuality is not moral, but I find no reason that the government should legislate that it is illegal. In fact, I would say that the whole same-sex marriage argument is a cut and dry case of the role of government.
John Locke, a giant from the Age of Enlightenment, said that the role of the government was to protect “life, liberty, and estate” in his Two Treatises of Government. Jefferson, when writing the Declaration of Independence used this idea in the phrase “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” By legislating against same-sex marriage, you are actively disenfranchising liberty.
So why not simply promote same-sex marriage in the interest of liberty? The problem is that we relinquish our institutions to our elected officials. By promoting same-sex marriage in the interest of liberty alone, we would be treating the symptoms but ignoring the disease.
I don’t think that we should promote gay marriage, I think we should remove the federal government from the institution altogether. I argue that the church created the institution of marriage, not the government. It’s fitting, then, that the church should be the one to define and protect it.