Los Angeles Times

The Republican case for same-sex marriage

Marylanders have an important decision to make this Election Day: whether or not to affirm their belief in the traditional American principle of equal rights for all, or instead to continue a system of special rights for some. A "yes" vote on Question 6 would sustain the Maryland legislature's recent historic vote that gave gay and lesbian couples to same right to marry as heterosexuals. A "no" vote would repeal marriage equality, perpetuating the unequal system of granting all the legal privileges and perks of marriage to heterosexual couples only.

National polls today show a modest majority of Americans in favor of marriage equality, but Republicans have traditionally opposed it. As a Republican myself, I find it troubling that many in my party seem so willing to let their private religious values trump the most important political value of all: the value of personal and religious liberty that all Republicans supposedly share. There is no clearer violation of the traditional Republican belief in equal rights before the law than when we relegate gays and lesbians to second-class citizenship simply because of their sexual orientation.

There is no doubt that we have seen rapid and not always welcome cultural changes in America. Where once Americans were almost all deeply religious, today nearly one in five professes no religious faith at all, and Americans in general are much more secular. Where once most Americans got married, now fewer than half do so. Many Republicans have simply had enough, and they want to help preserve a past that seems to be slipping further and further away.

By fighting to continue our current discriminatory system that gives special legal rights and economic privileges only to heterosexual couples, however, Republicans effectively repudiate the very principles of limited government and individual freedom they supposedly believe in. Moreover, they tarnish those principles in the eyes of younger voters, who overwhelmingly favor marriage equality.

Freedom is our most cherished political legacy. As Republicans, we believe in freedom of choice in both our economic and personal lives because it's the right thing to do, and because we believe those values are consistent with our nature as rational beings who can make their own choices. Freedom for some, however, should mean freedom for all, as Dick Cheney has poignantly reminded us.

Many conservative opponents of marriage equality also fail to make the critical distinction between the civil and religious parts of marriage, two very different things. People of faith, of course, vary widely in their beliefs about homosexuality and gay rights. While many conservative Christians believe unequivocally that the Bible condemns homosexuality and same-sex unions, other Christians, including many mainstream Protestants, do not. That is why churches, whether pro-gay or anti-gay, should be free to define marriage however they like and sanction only those marriages they believe are consistent with their own religious values.

It's for that very same reason that the civil part of marriage — the marriage license — also needs to be walled off from any particular set of religious beliefs. If we truly value religious freedom, Republicans cannot allow the government to impose one particular interpretation of the Bible on everyone else. It is simply wrong to claim the right of religious freedom and conscience for oneself but deny it to those who disagree with you.

Contrary to the claims of some opponents of Question 6, nothing in the law would force any church or religious institution to sanction same-sex marriage or perform same-sex ceremonies. Nor would the free speech rights of clergy who oppose same-sex unions be abridged in any way. That would also be a gross violation of religious liberty that the proponents of Question 6 do not propose or support.

Question 6 simply recognizes Maryland's great diversity of religious values and faiths by saying that one's sexual orientation should not be a barrier to enjoying all the legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage. By voting yes on Question 6, Republicans can reaffirm their commitment to both religious tolerance and the individual liberty that forms the philosophical basis of our party.

David Lampo is with the Cato Institute and is the author of "A Fundamental Freedom: Why Republicans, Conservatives and Libertarians Should Support Gay Rights" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2012).

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • Marriage equality can't wait

    Marriage equality can't wait

    In 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws banning interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, there was not a single dissent. Never mind that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute had been in the books since 1924. The justices unanimously found discrimination in the institution of marriage...

  • Court's silence on marriage speaks volumes [Editorial]

    Court's silence on marriage speaks volumes [Editorial]

    Our view: Same-sex marriage is set to be legal in a majority of states, making eventual Supreme Court victory appear inevitable

  • How will Kennedy vote on same-sex marriage?

    How will Kennedy vote on same-sex marriage?

    As a long-time civics teacher I follow the Supreme Court's decisions very carefully. I have long admired Justice Anthony Kennedy because he is the swing vote on the court and his decisions are often unpredictable.

  • Get states out of the marriage business

    Get states out of the marriage business

    In light of the recent Supreme Court on same sex marriage being protected under the Constitution ("Freedom to marry," June 27), there is now a movement afoot in Montana by a Mormon, Nathan Collier, who is legally married to Vicki, to be allowed to marry his second wife, Christine. Many have predicted...

  • Religious beliefs can't excuse discrimination

    A recent suggestion that some people should be exempt from serving gays because of their religious beliefs is nonsense. If you are licensed to provide a service or employed by the government to do so, you are required to perform that service without unlawful discrimination. Neither government employment...

  • Equality in Alabama

    Equality in Alabama

    These are heady days for advocates of marriage equality. The Supreme Court is due to hear arguments this spring in a group of cases that could settle the question of a national Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and this week, a decision not to enter a stay on the enforcement of a federal...

  • Yes, some people do follow the Bible to the letter

    Yes, some people do follow the Bible to the letter

    In his recent column ("The conservative case for same-sex marriage," March 29), Eddie Zipperer gives three reasons why conservatives should favor same sex marriage. I find his second, poking fun at the Bible, to be both offensive and ignorant.

  • Indiana learns discrimination is bad business

    The leaders of large corporations have not generally been at the vanguard of civil rights movements in this country. The average CEO is usually more concerned about stock valuations and quarterly dividends than about fighting discrimination. And when was the last time you saw the money-hungry NCAA...