Steers and Queers and Christian Fears



When people ask me why I became a libertarian, I usually blame it on the Department of Motor Vehicles, as I tend to see it as the painful microcosm of big government. Anyone who has spent any time at the DMV can recall long lines, strict organization and the intimidation of being at the mercy of government employees. I suppose there is some truth to the DMV having played a role in the shaping of my political philosophies, but all joking aside it is actually far more complex than that.

Admittedly I was much more of a hardline conservative in the aftermath of 9/11, a quality I attribute to my Christian upbringing as well as the inspiration I received from President Bush’s actions in response to the terrorist attacks. Before 9/11 I was a registered independent with very little concern for the world of politics, but I suppose we were all changed in some way by the horrendous attacks on our country. I should also note that in the months following the September 11th attacks, I really didn’t know what American conservatism entailed, even though I was decidedly a Republican. I figured abortionists were murderers, homosexuals were heathens and Democrats were accessories to murder and sodomy (thankfully I’ve grown up quite a bit since then). However, if you would have asked me about gun control, I probably would have supported strict firearm laws with the misguided assumption that gun control results in less crime, and if I were asked about smoker’s rights, I would have stood boldly in favor of smoking bans in public facilities. After all, secondhand smoke kills, right? Needless to say, my political education had not yet begun.

For me, libertarianism came in the form of an epiphany. In 2002, when my newfound political whoredom was fully under way, I began reading endless stacks of books. At first I only read books by conservative authors: Slander, by Ann Coulter, Pimps, Whores and Welfare Brats, by Star Parker, What’s So Great About America, by Dinesh D’Souza, The Way Things Ought To Be, by Rush Limbaugh, so on and so forth. This one-sided emphasis only reinforced my assurance of the infallibility of the right wing, and I did learn quite a bit along the way, but unfortunately I really wasn’t prepared for debate because I understood only the conservative arguments. I didn’t know how the liberal mind worked, and in fact after reading Ann Coulter, I just assumed that the liberal mind was far too nefarious to even analyze.

Upon realizing my ineptitude in understanding the leftist point of view, I stepped out of my comfort zone and began reading books by Michael Moore, Al Franken, Al Gore, Arianna Huffington, Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal. In some ways the socialist tendencies of many of these authors drew me further to the right, but in other ways I was challenged to look critically at my narrow social views and reevaluate my priorities. As much as I hated to admit it, the socialists (for all their faults) had a point in criticizing conservatives who simultaneously spoke of less government and more social intervention.

The epiphany came after I began examining the gay marriage debate. On the one hand I was inclined to oppose the legalization of gay marriage, and yet at the same time I was conflicted by my rightist belief that government intervention should be present only where necessary. For quite a while I struggled with this dilemma, and then finally the epiphany came: Both sides are wrong, because both sides have been duped. Suddenly it all made sense. Homosexuality is not at the center of the debate; GOVERNMENT IS! The whole reason our nation is divided over this silly issue is because of government. Our government, the government whose primary purpose is to protect us from real threats, has led us to believe through generations of conditioning that it alone is the provider of matrimony. Does anyone else see a problem here?

Marriage is supposed to be a spiritual union, transcendent of manmade laws and regulations, and yet today it has somehow become a “right.” Where did we go wrong? Well, apparently in the mid 1800’s. Traditional marriage advocates often argue that marriage laws must be protected because it is the “glue” that has held civilized societies together for centuries. You’ve probably heard this argument at some point or another. But did you know that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and even Abraham Lincoln lived long, fulfilling married lives without government intervention? That is because before the mid 19th century there was no such thing as a marriage license in America.

But wait, it gets worse. Marriage licenses were established not to unite couples in love and help them with their taxes, but to monitor the flow of interracial unions. The first marriage licenses in America were designed specifically to give interracial couples a mandate to marry in states that would allow them. So if anything, the government-issued marriage license is an historical reminder of the racial bigotry that plagued 19th century America.

But as we all know, once the government gets its talons around something, it only squeezes more tightly as time goes by. Today not only is marriage a government-regulated enterprise, it is also a prime factor in determining income tax status. Originally, I thought this was why homosexuals wanted to marry, but since the gay community has made it clear that civil unions aren’t good enough, the issue has obviously grown far more complicated than that.

Homosexuals (forgive the generalization; I don’t mean ALL homosexuals) now see this is as a battle of principle, a valiant struggle to overcome a history of second-class citizenship. That’s certainly a noble goal, but why should marriage be at the center of the struggle if marriage is (as we have already established) a spiritual union? Well, at the risk of sounding redundant:

GOVERNMENT!

(let’s all count how many times I use the word ‘government’ in this article)

I point this out because it illustrates why I am a libertarian. The struggle between left and right is the struggle for greater representation and power, and government is at the center of every political debate on the table. Reagan was right when he said that government is the problem, and the gay marriage debate is just one powerful example. If marriage had been left out of the government scope as it should have been, then homosexuals would have no reason to feel that their marriage ceremonies are any less valid than those held in conservative churches. Anybody can hold a ceremony with witnesses and vows and call it a wedding. Getting married is not like applying for citizenship. It is supposed to be about publicly declaring commitment between individuals, or about uniting spiritually before God, if that’s your persuasion.

When evangelicals protest about the need for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, they are in fact hindering the very institution they are trying to defend. Their intentions may be good, but they are diminishing the spiritual value of marriage by trying to increase the involvement of a faceless public authority. I fully understand that the main purpose of President Bush’s amendment proposal was to send a message to activist judges about legislating from the bench, an important problem that needs tackling, but unfortunately he went about it entirely the wrong way. This decision was especially irresponsible considering that it was announced during a time of war, as if we didn’t have enough reasons to hate each other. Instead of dealing with the rogue judges themselves, our president decided to take a page from the Liberal Handbook and employ further government regulation with the foolish belief that federal expansion would quell the problem in question. Unfortunately I’ve learned that that never works, and that it only leads to more problems. That is why I am a libertarian.

With that said, I do empathize with some of the concerns coming from the right. Frankly, conservative Christians are fearful that a national acceptance of gay marriage will inevitably endanger religious freedom. It may sound crazy, but it’s a valid concern. As conservative Christian activist Dr. James Dobson points out in his book “Marriage Under Fire,” we’re already seeing these effects in Canada. The Canadian government is cracking down on “hate speech” over the airwaves, which basically includes any words that can be interpreted as intolerant to the homosexual community. In other words, if a preacher quotes Romans 1:27, he can be deemed a perpetrator of hate speech. Gay activists are no longer interested in mere tolerance; they want complete, uncompromised acceptance. Of course everybody wants to be accepted and loved, but I think it is safe to say that this is one issue on which we are not going to reach a consensus in the near future. So what’s the solution, then? Say it with me now: LESS GOVERNMENT! Conservative and gay activists alike should realize that less government benefits us all. If government would keep its nose where it belongs and just focus on protecting us from psychos, gays would have no reason to feel oppressed by marriage laws, and Christians would have no reason to be fearful of having their rights trampled on by speech codes and discrimination laws. That is why I am a libertarian.

So in closing, Americans constitute the most diverse group of people on the planet. Our great nation represents every imaginable race, creed, and persuasion, and while that in itself is a beautiful thing, it carries with it the consequence that we will always have disagreements. If we rely on our government to settle these disagreements for us, the advantage will always rest in the hand of the interest with the most power at a give time, and that only leads to a more dangerous kind of disagreement; the kind that begets an unhealthy lust for power and a belief that not only are we all different, but we are all victims of a biased power structure. For this reason we have political parties, political action committees and an endless stream of hatred and animosity that stems from a fear of being underrepresented. Ronald Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” Reagan was never more right.

That is why I am a libertarian.