I received a Linkedin email today informing me that Meg Whitman (CEO of HP) is now a supporter of Civil Marriage for Same Sex couples. How Meg Whitman's personal views on social issues merits a broadcast mailing from what I thought was a professional networking site is a bit of a mystery. It remains to be seen if my unsubscribe attempt will spare me from future unsolicited editorials, but it is clear that momentum has started to build in the wrong direction in the traditional marriage debate.
Meg made news last week after changing her stance on traditional marriage to join with a number of other Republicans in the signing of an amicus brief encouraging the Supreme Court to rule against California Proposition 8. Meg's arguments against upholding prop 8 don't appear to have anything to do with the legal merits of the case, she just doesn't like prop 8 and wants the Supreme Court to agree with her social sensitivities on the issue...and I'm reminding myself that she was a gubernatorial candidate not that long ago.
At the core of this issue is whether or not the people of California have the right to define a standard in the area of marriage. If they do, then calls for the supreme court to overrule the will of the people are little more than complaints that somebody isn't getting their way. On the other hand, if the people of California are not free to define a standard, then logic fails any assertion that a different standard could, or even should, be defined. The debate over redefining marriage is not about gays. The debate is about marriage; what it is, what role it plays in society, what value it has, etc. The rationale used in the arguments in favor of gay marriage is indistinguishable from what would be used in arguments favoring polygamy or incestuous marriage. The only difference in the arguments is what standard society is willing to uphold, or relax.
The purpose of civil marriage is to provide a societal stamp of approval for a specific behavior and to encourage that behavior. In other words, its very purpose is to define and promote a standard. American society is generally becoming less comfortable with the idea of exceptionalism. The idea that our society might collectively say that traditional marriage is preferable to any other type of marriage makes some people uncomfortable, but that is essentially what civil marriage has always been about. A marriage license has not traditionally been viewed as a participation trophy to be handed out to any set of people that have declared their intent to form a familial bond.
I routinely run across libertarians and conservatives that feel that taking a position against redefining marriage is somehow not compatible with their limited government philosophy. As a conservative I would argue that the institution of civil marriage is not only compatible with my limited government philosophy, but important for maintaining a limited government. Libertarian arguments for making modifications to the current definition of civil marriage always puzzle me. One would expect the libertarian purist position to favor the end of any government involvement in marriage, not putting government in a position of expanding its influence. In either case, the idea that conservatism or libertarianism compel us to redefine civil marriage is nonsensical. One could at least make a rational case from a conservative perspective for getting government out of the marriage business, but that isn't a significant focus of debate.
In Meg's Linkedin article she says that she has changed her mind on this topic in the same way that Obama changed his mind. I find that easy enough to believe. Obama clearly never held a position in favor of traditional marriage, and I seriously doubt that Meg did either. Politicians frequently take positions for political reasons that change with the political winds. Focus group generated positions reveal themselves in time. It's not that hard to defend traditional marriage. It isn't the marriage license that makes marriage special, its the unique value that marriage provides to society that gives the marriage license its value. American society has a decision to make. Will we continue to acknowledge the unique value of a stable family where children are raised with the benefit of complimentary parents? If we really are no longer willing to set that institution aside as something special, it's not going to become any more special by redefining it.
No comments:
Post a Comment