This is the best article I’ve read on why supporting gay marriage is not a conservative position:
…During the Sunday morning talk show circuit, former Bush communications adviser took the moderate position emerging within the GOP against American Values’ Gary Bauer. Wallace tried to argue that supporting “marriage equality” is a conservative position. No, it is not.
I’ve never understood how anyone who spent the past four-plus years lamenting the size of government could then argue for its increase by inviting it into the discussion of marriage. We complain about government in health care, we complain about government in education, we complain about government regulating soft drink size, but suddenly some of us have no problem with more government in people’s relationships with one another. Marriage is a covenant between a man, woman, and God before God on His terms. It is a religious civil liberty, not a right granted by government. It should never have been regulated by government in the first place, and government shouldn’t have an expanded reach in further regulating it now. There is no allowance constitutionally that invites our government to define the religious covenant of marriage.
I’ve no issue with same sex couples entering into contractual agreements with each other or sharing benefits (the military decisions should be made by those with the credit of service day in and day out, not civilian advocacy groups). Isn’t that the goal of this conflict? If so, to me, that’s an issue separate from marriage. In suing over “marriage” itself one is demanding that God change His definition of the union between a man and a woman. If recognition of status, ease with other contractual obligations, and other issues are the issues, why the need to force people of faith to alter recognition of God’s Word on the matter? The people may bend as reeds to lawfare, but God will not. Frankly, I see no point in being on any side other than God’s on any matter, and God is more small government than any player in the scene.
In suing over marriage one is demanding that others modify their beliefs to accommodate another. Do not people of faith retain their First Amendment liberty of freedom of religion?
That has always been one of my biggest points. I’ve told people over and over that if gay marriage becomes legal, the gay population essentially gains a right and we who disagree with it lose a right, and that right is usually the right to disagree with it. Just check out all the lawsuits Dana has listed in her article and you’ll see how out of control this will get if SCOTUS legalizes gay marriage for all 50 states.
Also, I love the point Dana makes that marriage is a Godly institution and isn’t a right given to us by the government. What many don’t understand about the Christian opposition to gay marriage and homosexuality is that God created marriage and he created sexuality, therefore both are sacred just as someone’s race is sacred. God took a rib from Adam and made Eve from it, showing that man and woman were paired for each other. To change the definition of marriage between a man and a woman is to desacralize this institution it and turn it into something God did not intend.