When people talk about gay marriage, they miss the point. This isn't about gay marriage. It's about marriage. It's about family. It's about love. It isn't about religion. It's about civil marriage licenses. Churches can and should have the right to say no to marriage for gays in their congregations, just as Catholics say no to divorce, but divorce is still a civil option. These family values are not options for a happy and stable life. They are necessities. Putting gay relationships in some other category — civil unions, domestic partnerships, whatever — may alleviate real human needs, but by their very euphemism, by their very separateness, they actually build a wall between gay people and their families. They put back the barrier many of us have spent a lifetime trying to erase.Like Sullivan, I am conservative. I believe the government's role is supposed to be much more limited than it is now. I think fiscal responsibility, for the most part, lays in the hands of the people. I am pro-life, and I consider abortion a terrible, terrible action; almost murderous (read this for more information). But I cannot understand why, considering the vast freedoms this nation stands for, my constitutionalist conservative colleagues refuse to allow equal rights for two equal parties.
To state the obvious, this experimental democracy was founded on principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty, as Republicans generally claim, is defined as the right to metaphorically flail one's arms until the tip of another's nose. This molds standard conservative Republican positions on abortion, gun restrictions, affirmative action, etc. So why, exactly, are gays not allowed to flail their arms, be it in an excessively flamboyant flailing fashion?
I am conservative. I live in a gay marriage state. I am proud of it.
Wow, I am finally minority... we should go back and take a look at those affirmative action policies.