Gay Marriage Exposes the Hypocrisy of Both “Right” and “Left”

When it comes to gay marriage, the leftists are right—for the wrong reasons, as usual. And the conservatives are just plain wrong—as usual.

Let’s try applying reason and rationality to this issue, just once. May we, please?

The purpose of a proper government is to protect individual rights. Individual rights refer to upholding voluntary contracts and private property.

Conservatives and liberals alike speak of “marriage” as some kind of holy institution that their respective pressure groups are entitled to control. It’s actually not the Supreme Court’s job to settle matters of morality or cultural institutions. The government’s job is to support individual rights—nothing more, and nothing less.

Social conservatives speak as if there’s a “right” to live in a society where homosexuality is not endorsed or upheld in any way. Like all advocates of socialism or fascism, they focus primarily on “the children.” They essentially claim, “My children should not have to grow up in a world where same sex couples get married.”

Oh, really? Why not? What gives socially conservative parents the right to anything other than the right to be free from force or fraud? They do have a right to teach their children what they see as proper and moral, about sexuality or anything else. In time, their children will make up their own minds about such matters.

This, I suspect, is what frightens and angers the socially conservative parents. They don’t want freedom of choice any more than the leftists who want government to run most other aspects of our lives, such as schools, self-defense, banks, the food we eat, you name it. It’s just a different area of life they seek to control.

If two people of the same gender wish to get married and this personally offends you, the fact of your feeling offended does not give you any special right to stop it. Yet this is not an argument leftists can effectively make against the social conservatives. Why not? Because in almost every other area, leftists are constantly on the side of a big, expanding government.

How can the leftist establishment credibly uphold individual rights in the bedroom while thwarting them just about everywhere else? Right to abortion? Check. Right to have sex with consenting adults of your choosing? Check. Right to choose the food you eat, to spend your money without government taking it all, to choose your doctor in a free marketplace, to own a gun and keep it for self-defense if needed …? Forget it.

Leftists support more money for public schools, more money for public broadcasting, more tax subsidies for industry, all so that these sectors of society may be more subject to government pull, authority and control. When it comes to just about anything outside of gay marriage and abortion, leftists are all about authoritarianism and Big Government. Consequently, the only credible case they can make for gay marriage – one based on individual rights and smaller government – isn’t available to them.

Put bluntly, a leftist’s view of the world is one in which you freely engage in sex with your partner, while the house, the bed, and the birth control are all subsidized by the government — or by yourself, if you happen to make $250,000 or more a year (in which case you’ll be paying for others’ homes, beds and birth control a well as your own). I’d hardly call this liberty.

The gay marriage issue is contentious not just because of the subject itself, but because it exposes the ridiculous contradictions in what passes for political, social and moral debate in today’s society.

Conservatives argue for the “sanctity of marriage” when it has been plain for decades now that most (heterosexual) marriages don’t make it the first time around. If marriage as we know it is so solid and sacred, then why on earth does it end so badly for so many? The real question to be asking gay and lesbian couples isn’t, “How dare you want to get married?” What conservatives should be asking is, “Why do you want to do this to yourselves?”

My point here is not to be cynical. Nothing is more special to human existence than a long-range, committed relationship between two people who continue to love each other. Romantic love? It’s real, it’s possible—and yet it’s also quite rare. Human beings have a long way to go before marriage—by any definition—even begins to resemble the “sacred institution” social conservatives would have us believe it is, based on their defense of it.

I believe in the political right for gay and lesbian individuals to marry because I believe in the concept of equal individual rights.

I won’t surrender that defense to the leftists—the same people who have (without restraint or apology) given us socialized medicine, fascist control of once-private industries and open wealth redistribution. Whatever motivates people supporting these policies to uphold the right of two men or two women to marry, it certainly doesn’t have anything to do with the sovereignty of the individual over his or her own life.

  • IceTrey

    You don’t have to be gay to get same sex married.

  • Douglas Mayfield

    Dr. Hurd identifies a concept which leads not only to problems with gay marriage but also to myriad other painful difficulties in our country today, the utterly maliciously false idea that government is a source of good and therefore whoever is in power should use the force of government to impose their will on Americans.
    Government uses force and therefore, on a moral basis, should be strictly limited. But both todays Left and Right advocate the use of that force and then argue about how, where, to what that force should be applied.
    So no matter which side holds the reins of government, we as American citizens end up with the worst possible result, an unending malignant growth of government, federal, state, and local.
    Note that a so-called conservative, George Bush, began the bailouts which Obama enthusiastically adopted to the utter potential destruction of this country’s financial future.
    The cure is to recognize the fundamental concepts of freedom and individual rights and their corollary, strictly limited government. This is the argument which conservatives should be adopting but they do not.
    And so when Obama and company revel in imposing their socialist poison on America, the conservatives are left with no real sound philosophic alternative and can only engage in the moral-political equivalent of a hissy fit.

  • mkkevitt

    No. You can also be a lesbian. You can also be bisexual. You can even be transsexual, but that would be trickier. If you’re a heterosexual, you can do it then, too, but you might not like it so well. Mike Kevitt

  • IceTrey

    Yeah i know you can be hetero and get same sex married, that’s why I said it. Your comment is pointless.

  • stone7

    What about adoption? I’m sure there’s at least one set of gay males who are really excited about adopting a little boy. This is a can of worms, and that’s an understatement. It’s dangerous to pretend that one thing is the same as another, — dangerous.

  • Richard A Brown

    In a way I do agree with you when it come to individual liberty. Two people have a right to voluntary private contracts including marriage but such contacts cannot give right to infringe on the liberty of others. I have to grant the right to two homosexuals to marriage but they have no right to my or my churches approval or support. A good example of the left hypocrisy is a backer in Oregon refused to do a gay wedding cake. He simple referred them to another business. Now the state is going after him because he anti discrimination laws

  • mkkevitt

    Oh, ok. You didn’t actually say it, but what you said can be stretched to cover it. I just didn’t think you had any notion of stretching it that far, like I did, so I could bug you about it. Mike Kevitt

  • Jett Davis

    Your argument falls apart on several levels, Dr. Hurd. Number one, conservatives are concerned not necessarily with their child growing up in a society within which gay marriage is legal, but being taught by an education system which attempts to confuse and indoctrinate those children (at ever younger ages) into acceptance of a lifestyle they view as immoral and unhealthy. Relativism is the problem here. Kindergartners in Chicago, for example, are being taught that their ‘gender identity’ is a choice, and not genetically determined. To confuse kids at this young of an age in the name of ‘tolerance’ and ‘anti-bullying’ is reprehensible and fraudulent (I don’t need to know about the minutia of gay sex in order to know not to call gay people names or hit them). ‘Keep your hands to yourself,’ and ‘If you don’t have anything positive to say, don’t say anything’ would suffice in the lesson category. Secondly, as even Justice Sotomayor–a liberal–questioned on the opening day of arguments of the CA case: where would this new definition of marriage end? Bestiality? Incest? Group marriage? The point–as Dr. Carson was trying to make last week with his NAMBLA reference–is that there is no ‘slippery slope’ with redefining marriage; it is the equivalent of going off a cultural cliff, once you’ve done it there will be no turning back. A principle as old as civilization itself (older than the Bible) will be upended, and the unintended consequences to our society could be catastrophic. Then again, leftists (the socialists and fascists you describe) care little for consequences since they usually use physical coercion and emotional subterfuge to accomplish their goals. Lastly, the lack of perfection of the current state of marriage is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water, ‘Till death do us part’ is a goal to be strived for, not a fait accompli. Let’s hope the Supreme Court understands this.

  • otto lambsdorf

    the role of government is to preserve society. to do that woman-man and their offspring must be the cornerstone. this is why homosexual relations can not be endorsed as well as being single all your life and not raising your own children. the homosexual movement is basically an anti system movement, this is why it can not be approved of. one thing is to tolerate and not harm discreet homosexuality and something else to try to convince us sexuality is socially abnormal.

  • mkkevitt

    Whydya pick on gay males adopting little boys (they also adopt little girls)? How ’bout lesbian females adopting little girls (they also adopt little boys)? Anything can be a can of worms. Mike Kevitt

  • Michael Braun

    The concept of liberty upended a principle as old as civilization as well.

  • Anna Liberatore

    I am a social conservative. Let’s get that out of the way first. If you ask people why they want to live together and not get married, here’s what they say: I don’t want to get divorced. Well what does that mean, people still break up right? What they really mean is they don’t like the divorce rules. Where do those rules come from, the government. You don’t have to join a church, but you kinda have to abide by the government rules. So essentially, people still are getting married (that’s what living together with a verbal agreement is really, but they just don’t have a government marriage. Now why do all these people want to “come out”? I don’t really care if an athlete is gay, I just want to see them play ball. What they really want is society (everyone) to say they are doing something good. That’s why they want gay marriage. Now IMO the government should not be involved in marriage at all. It’s not really their business, it’s a private agreement between people see above. I will make a prediction, the liberals will scream the LOUDEST when you try to get government out of marriage. When government eventually does stop doing civil marriage, gay marriage will nolonger exist, because it’s whole reason for existence was to make other people agree with them.

  • Cass Michael

    What about a straight couple who are child molesters? Straight people can molest as well.

  • Lenore LaFiore


    the LEFT wants to force everyone to accept gay marriage and force every church to do any kind of wedding, or something.

    the RIGHT want to force churches who support gay marriage to NOT perform gay marriage.

    It’s the same thing, and it’s wrong for the same reason. This article was very well written and I won’t lie its going to keep me sticking around.

  • Lenore LaFiore

    Any couple of people, even unmarriage should have the right to adopt if they can show they are able to keep a household nice, and make enough money to support them.

    We shouldn’t give handouts to anyone for adopting children, but we should let anyone who can raise a kid better than leaving them in a prison for unwanted children.

    But I suppose I no longer see the purpose of marriage to be having children. And adopting children is what couples who can’t have kids should be doing.

    Straight people can be just as untrustworthy. Too many stories of families adopting 4-5 kids just to feed them as little as possible and spend the government handouts on personal goods.

  • Lenore LaFiore

    well the issue then is that getting married gives benefits on a federal level don’t you agree? I wish those benefits would be thrown out the door it’s not their job to give out benefits to married coupled. I fight the whole anti gay marriage thing for one sole reason.

    Hospital visits. But it shouldn’t be an issue, there should be a national wide civil union, marriage should be handled by churches. Every branch should be able to make it’s own rules without government telling them have to one way or the other.


    Stories like the one you mentioned make me wana cry.

  • ColonelNeville

    Go to massresistance org to see how well the predominantly left, atheist, radical activist promoted legalizing of homosexual marriage worked out for Massachussett’s, regards children, the law, culture, business and individual liberty etc, etc. Guess what: it didn’t. Check out the abuse of children indoctrination vids ie: “Fistgate” ad nauseum. It’s terrifying, I fool you not. No, really.

  • Jelepr

    The gay rights movement is a hypocrisy created by the gays and endorsed by Obama, perpetrated to secure ‘privileged rights’ after years of discrimination in exchange for liberal votes. Gays claim that they are fighting for ‘equal rights’ but in reality what they are pushing for is to have ‘privileged rights’.
    Example :
    The Fed. Fair Housing Acts of 1968 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race or color, religion, national origin, gender, family status and physical or mental disability, and now alternative lifestyles, but no “equal rights” for unmarried couples.
    Why it is not okay to discriminate against gays but it is fine to discriminate against singles, polygamous, unmarried couples or any other forms of interpersonal relationships?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This