One of the reasons I’ve always been very reluctant to join other libertarians in supporting gay marriage is a deep suspicion that the motivations of the core base of that particular movement lie far beyond the mere granting of equal tax benefits for homosexual couples, and that they absolutely will not stop there, and will keep agitating for even more aggressive “pro-gay” (for lack of a better term) policies, many of which will result in a profound decrease in individual freedom.
A cursory glance at some of the results of pro-gay legislation in more “progressive” countries, and even within the U.S. itself, would seem to confirm that my suspicions are well founded. Whether it’s hate speech laws that result in heavy fines and/or imprisonment for offering a personal opinion opposed to homosexuality, or proposed ordinances prohibiting anyone who has ever “demonstrated a bias” from being hired to a city position (technically speaking, this would include Barack Obama), or businesses being forced to cater to the demands of homosexual couples against their will, it’s clear that the movement for “marriage equality” has a lot more than just an expanded definition of marriage on their agenda. While my opponents regularly accuse me of invoking the dreaded SLIPPERY SLOPE, it’s readily apparent that gay marriage is already resulting in less freedom in many jurisdictions.
One such “hypothetical” negative outcome that I’ve referenced in the past is the notion that once gay marriage becomes legal, specific churches and clergymen may be forced to perform gay weddings, or face legal consequences. Despite the repeated insistence of my opponents that such an occurrence could never happen, would never happen, and that people in favor of gay marriage don’t even want it to happen… well… it may be about to happen in England, where a gay couple is taking the steps to sue the Church of England in order to force it to perform their wedding.
A few obvious concessions to get out of the way: Yes, this is in happening in England and not in America. Yes, the Church of England has a rather unique relationship to the British government of which there is no real parallel in America. Yes, this case has not been decided yet. I’m not suggesting that we might wake up tomorrow in a world where pastors are forced to perform gay weddings at the threat of imprisonment. But I am suggesting that forcing people to accommodate homosexuality against their will, with the threat of government action behind it, very much is on the agenda of the “LGBT rights” movement. By in large, those who loudly advocate for gay marriage are typically the same people who have absolutely no problem stomping on individual freedom and liberty in the name of equality and “social justice.” These are not people we should be standing with, even if they happen to be technically correct on the issue of tax benefits for homosexual couples.
Those of us who are concerned about individual freedom have two options: We can either keep our eyes open to what is happening in the rest of the world, with a clear understanding that these sorts of examples are not coincidences, and that they likely represent our future; or we can bury our heads in the sands with a blind insistence that America is a free country with a great government that respects and obeys the constitution and such outrages simply “can’t happen here.” The choice is ours.