Why Republicans should embrace the limited government approach to marriage


Marriage is a difficult topic in politics. Should homosexuals be able to engage in a legal relationship together, and live their lives with the benefits of a state recognized heterosexual couple? More often than not, this tends to be a partisan battle, with Democrats arguing in favor of same-sex marriage and Republicans arguing against.


For Republicans, the family is the foundation of a society, with the family being independent of government. On that note, Republicans have long believed that marriage, being central to the family structure, should be defined by the government. Movements across America have ranged from legislative definitions to even movements to amend the Constitution.

The problem is this is by definition contrary to what limited government is.

It’s difficult to take the Republicans seriously on the topic of marriage. Making the standard for the integrity of a family based entirely upon sexual preference is unfair. Is an abusive heterosexual couple better suited to raise children and be legally recognized as a couple than a loving, law-abiding homosexual couple?

It’s facts like these that get in the way of the traditional marriage message, which makes social conservatives themselves appear close-minded and homophobic.

Social conservatives like to equate freedom to associate with acceptance, and that’s hardly the case. Is allowing homosexuals to live their own personal lives happily together forcing a heterosexual religious couple to accept it? It’s not required. If someone more religious is hateful, then that is their right so long as they don’t impede upon the freedoms of the homosexual couple or injure them.

This is what freedom is.

America has a tradition of freedom, but it isn’t without it’s negative marks. Even upon the birth of the country, slavery existed and continued to be a thriving institution for decades after the founding. After this period, it still took America another hundred years to bring the message of racial equality into a more serious standing.

Women didn’t get the right to vote for a century and a half after the country’s founding, and we still encounter government abuses of freedoms enshrined within the Bill of Rights.

Freedom is a work in progress.


Now we’re faced with the issue of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals having equal rights. Why is this even an issue? Does a man liking another man make them less of a person? How about a female preferring another female? How about the member of one sex wanting to identify as another?

Social conservatives like to preach biology and nature in terms of why LGBT is wrong. Homosexuality itself isn’t exactly unnatural however. A number of animals, including Swans and Dolphins, have recorded homosexual activity, as identified by researchers. It does happen in nature.

Does that mean everyone has to accept it? Not everyone accepts everything about everybody, that’s life and we’re only human. But just because you disagree with something doesn’t mean everyone has to conform to your ideals.

It’s time for Republicans to embrace marriage freedom. There is nothing small government about needing the government to specifically define what a marriage is, therefore restricting the personal actions of consenting adults together. If the fight to defend state sanctioned marriage continues, then it shows the Republican Party to be mere hypocrites who do not believe in the message of limited government.

Chris Dixon is a liberty activist and writer from Maine. In addition to being Managing Editor for the Liberty Conservative, he also writes the Bangor Daily News blog "Undercover Porcupine" and for sports website Cleatgeeks.

Latest from Philosophy

Thanks for visiting our site! Stay in touch with us by subscribing to our newsletter. You will receive all of our latest updates, articles, endorsements, interviews, and videos direct to your inbox.