Here’s what I don’t understand. Conservatives are supposed to be for individual freedom. Some of them get upset when the government aids the poor because then what happens to the freedom to starve?
Conservatives are also big on tax cuts for the wealthy. They want the wealthy to keep more of their own money so that they in turn will work harder and boost the economy. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t run into any wealthy people lately who aren’t trying to get richer. Who are these rich people who have given up on the idea of getting even richer because they pay too many taxes?
Some conservatives are unhappy with the recent Supreme Court decisions. Conservatives believe you should get ahead on merit. They define "merit" as helping your kids get into the top schools by making huge donations. Because the Supreme Court fudged on the latest affirmative-action ruling, it is likely that minorities will ruin the conservative idea of a meritocracy.
As if that weren’t enough, the Supremes also struck down the Texas sodomy law. I don’t have any plans to visit Texas any time soon, but I like to know that when I do, the police won’t be knocking down my bedroom door. You would think conservatives would be happy. What you do behind your bedroom door should be your own business. Justice Antonin Scalia is a conservative icon, but he isn’t happy at all. In fact, Scalia sees the decline of Western civilization in this ruling.
Scalia is what is called a "strict constructionist." That means if the Constitution doesn’t mention freedom to sodomize, then he’s against it. For Justice Scalia, giving two consenting adults of the same sex permission to engage in sodomy in the privacy of their own bedroom puts us on that "slippery slope" that will end in gay marriages being recognized all over America, including Waco, Texas.
Our own Sen. Rick Santorum made that very argument, although he seemed more worried about an outbreak of bestiality than gay marriage. Santorum, once vilified, now feels vindicated. Just ask conservative talk-show host Michael Smerconish, who did an entire column designed to show us that the junior senator from Pennsylvania is not the crazy loon we feared. If the brilliant Scalia feels the same way, there must be something to this slippery slope. (Note: It is mandatory in conservative circles to affix the adjective "brilliant" to Scalia’s name and speak in hushed tones.)
For once I agree with Scalia and, to a lesser extent, Santorum. We are on a slippery slope heading toward the recognition of gay marriage. All over America, conservatives will now bow their heads and repeat after me: "It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Of course, my Uncle Nunzi says, it wasn’t Adam and Philomena, either, but we allow them to get married.
But let me repeat: I agree that the Supremes have opened the path toward the federal recognition of gay marriage, something not even Howard Dean would contemplate. I have only one small disagreement with Scalia and Santorum, if I may be permitted: I don’t think gay marriage is necessarily a bad thing any more than I think heterosexual marriage is necessarily a good thing.
Despite what Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says, marriage is not always a sacrament. There are lots of marriages that are never blessed by a religious institution — marriages that take place before a justice of the peace or some other sanctioned civil authority. Lots of divorced Catholics remarry, and the Church doesn’t recognize those marriages. There is ample precedent — to use a legal term — for marriages that are civil in nature. If a church doesn’t want to recognize a union between Adam and Steve, that will still be its right.
Uncle Nunzi believes that gay marriage will be just the thing to stop gay sex. Let them be miserable, too. In truth, I don’t think that gays will be lining up to get married any more than they would line up at recruitment centers to join the military. In the interest of accuracy, I’m not against gays in the military, either. (As a youth, I sang the Judy Garland songbook at the induction center to try to avoid the draft.)
The most common argument against gay marriage is that the union cannot produce children. But Uncle Nunzi and Aunt Millie went childless for 46 years and I never heard a peep out of William F. Buckley against their union.
Yes, we are sliding down that slippery slope, but it’s the same slope we once slid down when we struck down laws against racially mixed marriages. Now there’s a long line of white guys proposing to Halle Berry and, even in the Deep South, nobody cares.
If Scalia and Santorum have nothing better to worry about than an outbreak of alternative marriages, I suggest they chill out.
