“Do you believe that the United States should legally define marriage as between one man and one woman?” – Robocall question
Tonight my wife answered a robocall from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. The governor-turned-TV-show-host asked a few political questions then asked for a small donation. I believe he got all the answers he wanted – but none of the money.
About 30 seconds later, I fielded a robocall from, if I recall correctly, the Institute for American Values. They posed the above question about marriage as between one man and one woman. As a person who values principled consistency, I had to answer “no”. It’s not that I don’t believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, husband and wife, ’til death-do-us-part. I absolutely do. But the question went further and asked if it should be legally defined in such a way, to which I say “no.” (Interestingly, after answering “no” the robocall/questionnaire ended abruptly and I was cut off.)
It is not sufficient, in my view, to move in the direction of ever-increasing statism as long as we move toward “the right” viewpoints. It is statism itself that is the problem. The government ought not be able to define marriage for me – for the same reason that my neighbor ought not be able to define marriage for me. I have freedom of my own – and I don’t live my life “by your leave”.
While we’re on the subject, the government ought not be able to force me (or my place of business) to recognize a “marriage” if I don’t want to. Again, I am a free man, with my own faculties to make choices about my life.
It seems that the ring leaders of the progressive movement know where they’re going and are driving the country down a statist path. It also seems that there are “right-wing” forces driving in the same direction, hoping to yank the wheel over at the very last and put us on a more theocratic trajectory. I reject both of these propositions. We ought to be pulling away from statism altogether.