Do You Support Trenton's A.C. Takeover? 
Why Gay Marriage Legislation is Really Bad Politics
Matt Rooney | November 17, 2009
You keep asking for my opinion of the pending "gay marriage" vote, Save Jerseyans. My readers are a persistent bunch! Yes, I've purposely refused to indulge these inquiries simply because your beloved Blogger-in-Chief firmly believes that there are infinitely more important issues on the table right now. In case you haven't heard, our state's finances are headed off the cliff, Barack Obama is about to lose a war in Afghanistan and Congress is poised to destroy private health insurance in the United States.
Forgive me for appearing distracted!
Yet alas, New Jersey's governing body is forcing the gay marriage issue so, at the risk of neglecting more pressing concerns, I'll suffer this debate for a moment and spill a little digital ink on the topic.
Legislatively-enacted gay marriage is an objectively terrible idea. Hold up -- don't jump to any conclusions here. I generally don't care what two consenting adults do with their free time. It's a free country. As an ideological conservative, I'm very proud to live in an age where individuals are (usually) judged on merit and not superficial qualities like age, gender, race, sexual orientation, whatever. I only wish my race/gender-obsessed liberal friends felt the same way.
With all of that in mind, anyone who genuinely thinks that social change can be affected through crude legislation is exhibiting a gross ignorance of American history. To the contrary, social legislation's effect is usually limited to publicly acknowledging social changes which are already well-underway at the time of passage. And isn't that really what our homosexual brother and sisters are truly after?
Consider also how government inevitably screws up everything it touches. Examples? American public schools are sadly more racially segregated after decades of big government social engineering than in the 1950s. The 19th Century's racist Scott v. Sandford decision denied liberty to millions and initiated a civil war, while the 20th Century's pro-abortion Roe v. Wade decision inaugurated decades of bitter and divisive cultural warfare. We've observed time and again how government intervention often exacerbates problems by treating individuals like numbers and, in the the process, inadvertently institutionalizing inequality. Now flash forward to modern day, where "civil unions" don't seem to restrict the civil liberties of gay couples. According to state records, 4,170 same-sex couples live created civil unions since February 2007, yet only eight complaints have been filed with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights as of this writing. 21st Century gay Americans vote, own businesses, acquire property, advance professionally and live without the constant fear of physical harm.
So does anyone really expect gay marriage to substantively change anything? Of course not, Save Jerseyans: this gay marriage push is championed by gay activists intent on forcing society to recognize and sanction their lifestyle.
A sympathy-inducing rationale? Sure. Reason enough for legislative action in a lieu of a public referendum? Not at all! Legislatures shouldn't be in the business of passing symbolic legislation; humans first formed governments primarily to protect their rights and institutions from the transgressions of tyrants. How would this situation be any different? Right or wrong, marriage has meant the same thing since Adam and Eve went apple picking in Mesopotamia. So why in God's name should a lame duck cabal of corrupt, wasteful, incompetent and unpopular Trenton-dwelling hacks get to decide such a monumentally important issue as the fundamental redefining of marriage itself??? Jon Corzine, Paul Sarlo, Reed Gusciora and the rest of their State House allies are an arrogant bunch, indeed!
The alternative solution in this debate is clear: put gay marriage on the ballot! But they won't do it, Save Jerseyans. Your elected officials don't trust you to do "the right thing." If that infuriatingly elitist attitude doesn't convince you that government shouldn't be in the business of social engineering, then perhaps this country needs to spend more time debating the education system's failings and cease trying to force a vision of society on voters who have yet to independently ratify it. Just a thought.
So can we now please get back to the business of saving this state's economy? All of these ugly New Jersey social policy debates will be rendered utterly meaningless if no one can afford to live here!
You keep asking for my opinion of the pending "gay marriage" vote, Save Jerseyans. My readers are a persistent bunch! Yes, I've purposely refused to indulge these inquiries simply because your beloved Blogger-in-Chief firmly believes that there are infinitely more important issues on the table right now. In case you haven't heard, our state's finances are headed off the cliff, Barack Obama is about to lose a war in Afghanistan and Congress is poised to destroy private health insurance in the United States.
Forgive me for appearing distracted!
Yet alas, New Jersey's governing body is forcing the gay marriage issue so, at the risk of neglecting more pressing concerns, I'll suffer this debate for a moment and spill a little digital ink on the topic.
Legislatively-enacted gay marriage is an objectively terrible idea. Hold up -- don't jump to any conclusions here. I generally don't care what two consenting adults do with their free time. It's a free country. As an ideological conservative, I'm very proud to live in an age where individuals are (usually) judged on merit and not superficial qualities like age, gender, race, sexual orientation, whatever. I only wish my race/gender-obsessed liberal friends felt the same way.
With all of that in mind, anyone who genuinely thinks that social change can be affected through crude legislation is exhibiting a gross ignorance of American history. To the contrary, social legislation's effect is usually limited to publicly acknowledging social changes which are already well-underway at the time of passage. And isn't that really what our homosexual brother and sisters are truly after?
Consider also how government inevitably screws up everything it touches. Examples? American public schools are sadly more racially segregated after decades of big government social engineering than in the 1950s. The 19th Century's racist Scott v. Sandford decision denied liberty to millions and initiated a civil war, while the 20th Century's pro-abortion Roe v. Wade decision inaugurated decades of bitter and divisive cultural warfare. We've observed time and again how government intervention often exacerbates problems by treating individuals like numbers and, in the the process, inadvertently institutionalizing inequality. Now flash forward to modern day, where "civil unions" don't seem to restrict the civil liberties of gay couples. According to state records, 4,170 same-sex couples live created civil unions since February 2007, yet only eight complaints have been filed with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights as of this writing. 21st Century gay Americans vote, own businesses, acquire property, advance professionally and live without the constant fear of physical harm.
So does anyone really expect gay marriage to substantively change anything? Of course not, Save Jerseyans: this gay marriage push is championed by gay activists intent on forcing society to recognize and sanction their lifestyle.
A sympathy-inducing rationale? Sure. Reason enough for legislative action in a lieu of a public referendum? Not at all! Legislatures shouldn't be in the business of passing symbolic legislation; humans first formed governments primarily to protect their rights and institutions from the transgressions of tyrants. How would this situation be any different? Right or wrong, marriage has meant the same thing since Adam and Eve went apple picking in Mesopotamia. So why in God's name should a lame duck cabal of corrupt, wasteful, incompetent and unpopular Trenton-dwelling hacks get to decide such a monumentally important issue as the fundamental redefining of marriage itself??? Jon Corzine, Paul Sarlo, Reed Gusciora and the rest of their State House allies are an arrogant bunch, indeed!
The alternative solution in this debate is clear: put gay marriage on the ballot! But they won't do it, Save Jerseyans. Your elected officials don't trust you to do "the right thing." If that infuriatingly elitist attitude doesn't convince you that government shouldn't be in the business of social engineering, then perhaps this country needs to spend more time debating the education system's failings and cease trying to force a vision of society on voters who have yet to independently ratify it. Just a thought.
So can we now please get back to the business of saving this state's economy? All of these ugly New Jersey social policy debates will be rendered utterly meaningless if no one can afford to live here!
Matt, this is hands-down the most rational and well-stated piece I've read on this issue, on either side of the debate. I really enjoyed your pointed discussion of the role of legislating social behavior and the goal of recognition that it aims to achieve. You're right in the statement that right now, the legislature should be working on the heavy lifting of fixing the economic affairs of the State of New Jersey.
Reply to this
Rooney is clearly a bigot. Gay marriage is a right! Let everyone do whatever they please. Government should never legislate morality.
Reply to this
You clearly didn't read his argument - he argues for a ballot question. You then pretty much agree with him when you say "government should never legislate morality".
Reply to this