Civil Libertarian Wedding Bells

The ladder we climb to tyranny is sometimes motivated by good intentions. Each successive rung is reached for then stood upon as we grasp for authority to later use against others. First we give the authority to the state to do some work we find important, then we bring the state down upon our own heads in enforcement. To the rescue are civil-libertarians that wish to promote government as enforcement of an increasing enumeration of rights.

In a discussion on Captain's Quarters over the legislation in Connecticut to grant Civil Unions to sames-sex couples, Flenser discussed how civil-libertarian doctrine can propel us up the ladder:

Once you start with a world-view which holds that society is simply a geographical grouping of free-floating individuals, all of whom carry with them a lengthy list of "rights" which are in danger of being violated at any time by any other individual or group of individuals, then an omnipresent and omniscient state is really a requirement to protect us all from one another.

I'm pretty sure you can construct a rather totalitarian system out of the raw material of "individual rights" just as easily as you can out of "equality"... It requires that anything pertaining to our “rights” be the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts, and demotes the executive and legislative branches to simply carrying out the orders of the judges.

Judges are not the only source of tyranny, however. Looking at Connecticut we can see how the outcropping of civil libertarian ideals in "civil unions" have caused a conflict. It is a classic case of a right that isn't in the Constitution being pitted against two that are, freedom of association and freedom of religious expression. Unfortunately, the constitutional rights are the ones ignored bringing them one rung closer to the top. According to Tom R. in the same discussion (it is probably coincidence that this comes from the judiciary committee):

The debates in the Judiciary Committee in February made it clear that the only thing this is about is compelling recognition of homosexuality.

Rep. Michael Lawlor, sponsor of the bill in the state house, was transparent about his desire to legislate even private attitudes. He is not prescribing behavior, he is imposing a worldview, "public attitudes and private attitudes towards homosexuality. That is really what is at the heart of this ... That's what it is all about. And recognition of same-sex marriage is the most symbolic acknowledgment that homosexuality simply appears to be a normally occurring phenomenon in nature." Lawlor offers no rationale for proposing same-sex marriage legislation, he identifies no interest of the state in this, except as a symbol that homosexuality is normal and natural.

Sen. Andrew McDonald's, sponsor in the state senate's, rationale is that same-sex couples are required "to justify to the outside world the love that you have in your heart and that is wrong. That is wrong and unacceptable." Again, though he claims he doesn't want to undermine anyone's religious faith, he, nevertheless, asserts that "the people" of Connecticut have decided to confer respect and moral approval on same-sex couples.

This Wednesday, the state House rejected the following proposed amendment:

No religious employer or business will be required to recognize a civil union if it is contrary to the bona fide religious tenets of such religious employer or business. As used in this section, "religious employer or business" means an employer or business that is a qualified church-controlled organization, as defined in 26 USC 3121, or a church affiliated organization.

Lawlor said, "Religious organizations should not be exempt from recognizing, respecting and honoring same-sex civil unions."

So, though the state cannot compel clergy to perform civil union ceremonies, nor dictate what is taught during formal worship services, the freedom of conscience of religious people has been constrained.

This is about disallowing moral judgment; nothing else.

Consensus is tantalizingly easy to achieve if we simply remove the responsibility for moral judgment from the populace. Certainly the concept of a lower homogenized class who leaves moral judgment up to their wiser big brother has been done before. A person on Kuro5hin.org who goes by the handle "cr8dle2grave" once said:

Gay marriage is only one front in the larger conflict over the cultural normalization of homosexuality (and it can be reasonably argued that this conflict is itself part and parcel of other larger trends within the cultural landscape). Although we can and should be logical and reasonable about the arguments we make on this particular issue, it must be understood that the conflict ultimately stems from a source which is itself inherently beyond the domain of logical appeal. No point of logic can ever be dispositive in those conflicts arising from the tumultuous process of shifting cultural normalization, as what is at issue is not a species of truth or fact, but sentiment and perception.

As a supporter of normalizing homosexuality within our culture, I do not ultimately seek your assent to any particular point of logic. There is no singular fact or collection of facts which I am demanding you acknowledge. What I desire is the continuation of that process which is actively reordering the fundamental values which predicate moral judgments on matters of sexual behavior and its relation to social institutions.

This is why the debate over gay [sic] marriage is so unusually hostile, unseemly, and divisive. To put it more bluntly: I do not seek your agreement; I wish to inculcate in your children the opinion that you are anachronistic, bigoted, and hateful.

That is very much in the spirit of the saying, "if I wanted your opinion I'd give it to you". Note how moral judgment is not being removed, it is being served. Sure we should appeal to logic and reason but he looks to giving the opinion rather than developing one. Progression is a goal in and of itself, or fear the label of being anachronistic. And making your own moral judgments risks offending people, not making moral judgments makes you safe from the terms "bigot" and "hate monger".

How much better are the ideals that marriage espouses. Democratic ideals like equal representation among sexes, individual excellence and quality in gender identity, responsible governance as you recognize raising your children as a goal above, yet not incompatible with the love you share with your spouse. It is unselfishness, compromise, familiarity and support that marriage has in conflict to, and in my opinion more value than, the civil libertarian ideals that seek to destroy it.