The ongoing controversy over gay marriage illustrates one of the several undesirable effects of government over-involvement in our lives: it sets one segment of society against other segments of society, each attempting to twist the coercive arm of government onto others.
If we take a big step back from the arguments of law, precedent, the 14th Amendment, etc., we could ask ourselves the larger question, If government did not meddle in the institution of marriage, would we be having this social unrest?
No.
And the more government has control over our lives and liberties the more divided, short sighted, and hypocritical we as a people become. This trend sets us to influence government to manipulate others in an effort to secure our own self interests.
On one side of the gay marriage debate are social conservatives looking to government to define and protect marriage in an effort to restrict others in society to the same definition. Really? Conservatives are supposed to be suspicious of "big government" and the encroachment of the state into our lives and liberties.
Are these same social conservatives also comfortable having government define and control how much of their personal property is confiscated and redistributed to others via the progressive tax code? The fruits of our labor is nobody's business. How, then, is asking government to intervene in a very private, voluntary relationship consistent with conservatism?
On the other side of gay marriage are the radical let's-transform-society-in-the-image-of-our-making activists, seeking to use the force of law through judicial activism to force others in society to legally validate a lifestyle that is widely unaccepted. Claiming discrimination as a complaint, they are looking to leverage society to accept homosexuality through government regulation of marriage. This effort goes far beyond a rational argument for toleration and looks to legally force Americans to validate homosexuality by making equal before the law all marriages.
Again, really? The contemporary "liberal" believes (supposedly, at least) in being open-mined and tolerant of others. How is using the court system to force others to accept homosexuality "liberal," then? Are these same activists equally appalled at the discrimination and unequal treatment of the tax code?
The more social conservatives push for government to define and protect the institution of marriage, the more they open up churches to government regulation. Do they really expect government to set an ultimate definition of marriage then have government not eventually have a say in how churches conduct themselves? Does government have a history of growing or receding in these, and, indeed, all affairs?
The more homosexual activists manipulate society through the court system, the more they are empowering the state over their own lives. Is it a guarantee that all court decisions will go the way they wish? Are they really comfortable placing their vision of society in the hands of judges today, thinking it will always be so tomorrow?
We should all want less government in our lives, not more. In a free society government would have no say in marriage. We would be free from the danger of having it and other private associations defined and controlled by small groups in society. And we would be free from the encroachment of the government at least in this one part of our lives, marriage. As individuals we would have less reasons to resent each other. We would have to rely on the free exchange of ideas and the persuasiveness of our arguments to shape society, not petition the government to use coercion to shape society to our respective likings.
There are many reasons to prefer a freer society. A less contentious and litigious society is one of them. As we face a vast expansion of government into other parts of our lives--health care, home mortgages, the auto industry, college tuition---we would do well to think of the social unrest and division government involvement in marriage has caused.
