Render Unto Caesar
Bush II’s radical fundamentalist outlook explains a lot of his opposition to gay marriage. He is also a typically short-sighted politician in this respect and a rampant homophobe. John Howard has decided to weigh in with his support for Bush II’s position, but he’s taken the take that government should support male-female-only marriage because it is required for the “survival of the species.” Marriage is a civil contract between two persons to engage in mutual support, and traditionally that has entailed support of any offspring. Religions have sought to endorse this contractual obligation by adding quasi-mystical elements. People make these commitments outside of marriage, too (which is one of the factors that imperil institutional religions). Acknowledging that homosexuals can and often do commit themselves to monogamous relationships by allowing them to register their pledge with the state imperils nothing, at least no further than it is already affected. Governments, despite Howard’s statement, are not often engaged in ensuring the survival of the species, but rather the maximization of an on-going tax base: they ensure their own survival. Because of the significance of the Religious Right in politics, particularly during the Reagan administration, there is a perception that political survival depends on catering to the requirements of fundamentalists, at least in part, a practice that has two effects: first, a “Catch-22,” wherein the influence of the Religious Right increases even while politicians strive to distance themselves from it, because they also seek to placate it (like a stray dog, the more you feed it, the more likely it is to follow you home, the very situation that has put Bush II in office); second, a rise in violent activism – the same conditions faced by the Saudis, among others – and there were enough anti-abortion-related bombings and shootings in the U.S. to give anyone concern. Governments should build and maintain roads and bridges, fund courts and schools, provide for a reasonable level of national defense, and seek to generally improve the quality of life among their constituent populations. Instead, we see them seeking to qualify what life is. Clinton may have had the education to engage in philosophical debate, but I don’t see any evidence that Bush II or Howard can manage it.