McCain presidential campaign strategist Steve Schmidt spoke to the Log Cabin Republicans today
and made a very strong Republican case for gay marriage. I don’t
agree with him entirely. For example, I think he underestimates
the potential backlash among social conservatives if the GOP were
to abandon its stance on marriage, and overlooks other electoral
challenges — for instance, gay marriage is one of the issues
where Republicans appeal to Hispanic voters who may otherwise not
agree with the party’s economic stances. But the strength of his
argument, I think, lies in the fact that he drops the
sanctimonious tone employed by many advocates of gay marriage and
shows respect and understanding to those who firmly believe that
marriage should remain between a man and a woman. I think the
whole speech is worth a read, but here’s a taste:
Social conservatives remain an indispensable part of the
Republican coalition. I don’t subscribe to the notion
that social conservatives are a monolithic bloc of close minded
people who would tread on the rights of Americans who disagree
with them. Nor do I think conservatism will or should abandon
its reluctance to change or abandon social conventions that are
important to the strength and stability of our society.
The institution of marriage is the foundation of society and
alterations to its definitions shouldn’t be lightly
undertaken. It has always been defined as the legal union
of a man and a woman, and it’s understandable that many
Americans are apprehensive about making a definitional change
to so profoundly an important institution. But it is a
tradition, not a creed, or, at least, not a national
creed. It is not how we define ourselves as
Americans. And while we shouldn’t carelessly dismiss the
importance of enduring traditions, we should understand that
traditions do change over time in every society. And as
long as those changes do not conflict with the tenets of our
national creed then they can, and inevitably will, be modified
by a society that has come to view them as inequitable….
The argument of the pro-life community acquires its moral force
because it holds that the life of the unborn is not distinct in
its dignity from the life of the born, and, thus, possesses a
God-given right to be protected. The same protection
cannot be argued to extend to the institutional definition of
marriage as exclusively the union of persons of the opposite
sex.
It can be argued, although I disagree, that marriage should
remain the legal union of a man and a woman because changing it
to admit same sex unions would undermine the most basic
institution of a well ordered society. It can be argued
according to the creeds and convictions of religious belief,
which I respect. But it cannot be argued that marriage
between people of the same sex is un-American or threatens the
rights of others. On the contrary, it seems to me that
denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form
a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state
denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in
the preamble of our Declaration of Independence – liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness. That, I believe, gives the
argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force.
This is more or less where I stand. My political beliefs are
always rooted in the basic idea that people should have the
freedom to do what they want as long as they do not harm others
in the process, and I don’t see how allowing two people of the
same sex to marry harms a third party. In my ideal world,
government’s role would be limited to granting something akin to
civil unions for everybody and the concept of marriage would be
preserved for religious institutions, who would have the right to
marry or not marry whoever they choose. But as long as government
is in the marriage business, I just don’t see the harm in
extending marriage rights to same sex couples.
