[Cross-posted from OC Blog]

Although what became Proposition 8 was already moving toward the November ballot, what really thrust same-sex marriage to the forefront of California and national politics was the state Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision creating it. Since then I’ve been perplexed by the attitude of a number of Republicans and small "l" libertarians to the court’s decision and the issue of same-sex marriage.

For example, the OC Register editorial page responded by expressing its support for the ruling, and Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr chimed in his approval.

It’s astounding to me that any libertarian would applaud a such a naked exercise of government power. Four judges took it upon themselves to use their power to re-define the fundamental unit of civilization in opposition to what it has been throughout recorded history. Such deep social engineering by judicial diktat should appall libertarians, not merit their approval.

Instead, libertarians and conservatives ought to be natural allies in the effort to pass Proposition 8.
Government in America exists to secure certain our inalienable rights such as life, liberty and property. These rights are "inalienable" because they reside within us. In other words, government is the protector, not the source, of these rights.

Stated another way, government exists to guarantee rights that already present in nature, which is why the Declaration points to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God" as entitling the 13 colonies to break from England and establish themselves as an independent nation.

In other words, the United States’ founding principles spring from the natural law, which holds nature — the world, creation, etc — has an order and purpose we can know intuitively and by use of our reason — the "self-evident truths" and aforementioned "laws of Nature and of Nature’s God" of the Declaration of Independence. The natural law is universal and eternal, hence the Declaration’s statement that "all Men" are created equal and "endowed by their Creator"  with unalienable rights.

The point of this discourse is that the nature of marriage also flows from the same natural law on which our form of government rests. Throughout history and across cultures, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Granted, marriage has not always worn a monogamous form, but even in cultures where polygamy is tolerated or even the norm, marriage itself is the union of man and woman.

That marriage is by its nature between a man and a woman is a self-evident truth. A man can no more marry another another man that he can marry a parrot. Whatever relationship two people of the same sex may form, it cannot be marriage.

Marriage and its fruit, the family, are foundational to a healthy society. That government should secure marriage — just as it secures our rights to life, liberty and property — is entirely reasonable and in keeping with the American tradition of government. These are cornerstones of the virtuous civilization upon which self-government depends.

Now, opponents of Proposition 8 — which would amend the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman — try to cast the debate as a question of equal rights, as if marriage were a public facility of which everyone ought to have free.

But since marriage is, by its nature, by definition, intrinsically the union of a man and woman, a same-sex couple cannot claim the right to it. It would be akin to a man asserting the right to give birth to a baby; it would be absurd because it is contrary to his nature, regardless of how strongly he believes otherwise.

The true issue at hand in the same-sex marriage debate is whether our natural rights are the unalienable rights observed by the Declaration of Independence, or "positive" rights subject to revision at anytime by interest groups able to apply sufficient political power.

The latter philosophy of positivism drives proponents of same-sex marriage proponents, whether they are aware of it or not, and under it our rights can be made, unmade, reconfigured and invented at any time. This is the camp that views the Constitution as a "living document" and elevates universal health care from policy preference to the status of human right.

If a social institution as fundamental and ancient as marriage can be so abruptly redefined by the brute governmental power, then no natural right is secure from similar revisions into conformity with the desires of a powerful interest group.

Supporters of Proposition 8 aren’t initiating a "culture war." They are protecting an ancient institution from being redefined by an arrogant judiciary into something it is not. The fight to restore marriage in California is in keeping with the philosophy of liberty upon which America was founded, and on which our form of government is built. Same-sex marriage proponents assertions that this is an "equal rights" issue are flat out, self-evidently wrong and in opposition to the collective experience of mankind.

It’s not too late for those libertarians and those errant conservatives opposing Prop. 8 to come to their senses.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.