How civil unions square with GOP principles
19th November 2008
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Thus, I write on the touchy subject of gay rights. My observations are written from the perspective of a long-time believer in conservative Republican principles. What are those you might ask?
Well, a brief listing of mine would include: that the government should pursue sound fiscal policies; that government spending is not as good for the country as private persons spending their own money, and that the government should control its spending; that the government must maintain law and order; that the principal responsibility of government is to defend the country; to do for citizens only what they cannot or should not do for themselves; that less government is better government; that the free market is the best way to create wealth and last, but by no means least, that human beings should be free. It is the last of these principles that have bearing on today's subject.
Republicans have traditionally encouraged the maximum amount of human freedom for competent and mature citizens. Republicans have generally thought it should not be government's responsibility to control private thought and practice. Surely, however, it is not the business of governments to try to control what goes on in the private lives of citizens any more than it is the duty of government to try to control individual thoughts and beliefs.
There are two problems. The first is that over the past eight years, we Republicans have not done an adequate job of adhering to our principles. That doesn't change the principles. The second is that there is much more diversity among Republicans about what Republican principles are than there was a few decades ago. I'm sure that there will be some complaints about this column from Republicans, especially those on the far right.
So, where does this take us on the matter of gay rights? It is clear that many people choose the gay lifestyle. While it may not be your choice or my choice, that choice clearly falls in the area of personal choice under any conception of ''human freedom'' that I can envision. Under a realistic acceptance of the circumstances that pertain, the question for society is how should the law of the land handle these relationships, and to what extent should the law involve itself in these relationships.
Let's start with civil unions. The gay point of view on this matter, as I understand it, is that devoted long-term couples are prevented from taking care of one another in a manner that heterosexual couples can and do. Gay couples, having no legal status, have trouble taking care of one another in health-care matters, insurance matters, inheritance matters and the like. I believe that the gay point of view on civil unions is reasonable and in the best interest of all of society. Civil unions would solve a number of societal problems for homosexual couples, and without, as far as I can see, doing any harm. It is simply recognition of 21st century life, adapting our rules for the benefit of all of society.
Does that mean I favor gay marriage? Absolutely not. The whole idea is a travesty on the English language, and I believe, in some quarters at least, intended to be a deliberate affront to both religious people and heterosexual couples. The word ''marriage'' has a very precise meaning in the English language: It is a union between one man and one woman, with the expectation that it is a lifetime union. Furthermore, redefining marriage in a way that offends many accomplishes no societal goal that is not already accomplished by the acceptance of civil unions.
A protester in Boston is quoted as saying ''I just found out that my state doesn't really think I'm a person.'' Highly charged and nonsensical rhetoric will not solve our problem; a combination of respect for human freedom and a willingness to compromise, will.
Source: The Morning Call