No one denies that the philosophical divide between Americans on the political left and right has only grown sharper in recent years. Bitter resentment and contempt for those of opposing views is commonplace. It often seems that the stronger the convictions or the more awareness one has of political issues, the more fervently one tends to see others as opponents.
One of the more polarizing issues seems to be the issue of same-sex marriage. People from both sides are sharply opinionated on the matter, and it seems that a mutually favorable solution is unlikely to present itself anytime soon.
But what if a mere change in tactics by one political persuasion could bring about a reversal of this situation where both sides could achieve their stated goals? I would suggest that there is, indeed, a solution and that it deserves consideration.
If right-leaning types oppose same-sex marriage on the grounds that it infringes upon their ability to religiously define what has always been a traditionally religious sacrament, and left-leaning types tend to view the ability of same-sex couples to marry as a human-rights or personal liberty issue, which side is ultimately correct? Unequivocally, I say both.
So how do we break the impasse?
I would suggest that it could be achieved by merely applying the following formula to the issue, “Is there any way to address this problem with more freedom, not less?”
As columnist and talk-show host Dennis Prager is fond of saying, “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.” If you can agree with this statement, then you can certainly see that there is a larger problem at the core of this issue.
At my own wedding nearly eight years ago, an aging Elvis impersonator sang my bride and I the benediction, “By the power vested in me by the great state of Nevada and on behalf of the City of Las Vegas, I now pronounce you husband and wife.”
It wasn’t a particularly religious ceremony, but it still required sanctioning by the state. In order for my wife and I to get married, we needed permission, sanction and license from a state agency first — a process by which we stood in line and paid a fee.
Since the mid-1800s, Americans have tolerated their government taxing and regulating their own most precious sacraments without giving it a thought. These same laws have never been shown to benefit anyone, and have in fact caused division and strife on multiple occasions, as in the case of miscegenation laws that prohibited inter-racial couples from wedding. I find this morally repugnant and a perfect example of government overreach.
If proponents of same-sex marriage were to shift tactics from demanding state recognition to the repeal of all state interference in intimate personal relationships, the matter would become merely one of contract law between private individuals.
Conservatives would remain free to exercise their consciences within their homes and churches, and same-sex couples would be free to marry whomever they chose with impunity. The only loser would be the state, which would finally be denied another venue to extort funds from a divided citizenry.
In my mind, such a liberty movement is long overdue. Everyone deserves compassion and consideration of their own humanity, whether or not we always agree on lifestyle choices.
Haul up the rainbow flag if you wish, and this conservative and others like me would be proud to stand shoulder to shoulder under it with you. Striking a blow against Leviathan in the name of individual liberty is a righteous cause under any flag.
Joshua Fonzi is a microbiology and cell science and entomology and nematology senior at UF. His column appears on Thursdays. You can contact him at opinions@alligator.org.
