Gay marriage decision limits government control

The government is not a hammer. It is not meant to be used beat its citizens into submission. It is also not meant to be used to build a dream world, because whose dream world would it be? It would be the dream of the person holding the hammer.

The California Supreme Court decision Thursday to overrule a proposition blocking gay marriages in the state may seem like a victory for the Left, but it’s really a victory for believers in smaller government.

Essentially the majority opinion limits the state’s ability to decide what constitutes a relationship and a family: “In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”

It would be easy to perceive this decision through a gay vs. straight filter, but put more broadly, the court decision limits the role of the government in the private lives of families and households. This should be seen as good news for anybody who supports privacy and personal rights.

Unfortunately, it’s not. Those who wish to use the government as a hammer to build their perfect world are working to pass a constitutional amendment to block gay marriages again, taking the matter out of the state Supreme Court’s hands.

It’s disappointing how many people are willing to put the fate of their own civil liberties at the hands of the majority, as long as they’re part of that majority. Do we really want the government deciding what constitutes a family?

Before you answer yes to that question, keep in mind that registered Democrats currently outnumber Republicans significantly in California. If a constitutional amendment blocking the recognition of gay marriages passes, what is to stop a constitutional amendment blocking the recognition of marriages between Republicans? If the argument is that the will of the majority gets to decide individual rights, then Republicans are obligated to accept this possibility.

Rights exist to protect the individual from the whims of the majority. Rights exist to keep the government from becoming a hammer. Rights exist so that people can create their own utopia as best as they can, as long as they don’t intrude upon the rights of others.

These rights go in both directions. That gay marriages will be acknowledged by the state doesn’t obligate individuals to support them, nor churches to perform them. If California does attempt to require churches to perform same-sex marriages, the Desert Dispatch will strongly oppose such measures. The libertarian position on marriage is that it is a private agreement between consenting adults and the state should have as little involvement with the matter as possible.

The lesson should be avoid using the government as a hammer. Unfortunately, it seems that many people have instead concluded that the lesson is to be the person who gets to hold and control said tool.

Full disclosure from the editor: I’m gay, and therefore I have a larger stake in the outcome of this debate than is typical.