Republicans and Gay Marriage

Over at Big Hollywood, Maura Flynn has an outstanding post entitled The Republican Case for Gay Marriage. The entire thing is worth reading, but here is the key passage:

Me, I implore the Republicans to become — once and for all — the party of freedom. The true moral highground is there to seize. Our Constitution was created as a shield against government encroachment on our personal lives. Conservatives should be the last people who would dare turn this document into a weapon.

I couldn’t agree more. In recent days, I have been very happy to see prominent conservatives like Dick Cheney and Ted Olson make forceful statements in favor of gay marriage in recent days. I hope others will follow.

UPDATE: In the comments, a reader writes: “Cheney spoke in favor of gay unions, NOT gay marriage.” Sorry, but I disagree. Cheney was asked: “Given recent developments in Iowa and elsewhere, is some form of legalized gay marriage inevitable in the United States?” Cheney responded unequivocally: “I think freedom means freedom for everyone.” Here’s the video with the full question and answer:

Moreover, this wasn’t the first time he spoke on the issue. During the 2004 Presidential race, however, he openly disagreed with President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a women. He also added, quite appropriately at the time, that “the President makes basic policy for this administration and he’s made it clear that he does in fact support a constitutional amendment on this issue.”

It is true that Cheney takes a more incremental stand on the issue than Ted Olson. Cheney believes that the definition of marriage should be left to the states and determined on a state by state basis. Olson, on the other hand, believes that there is a federal constitutional right to gay marriage under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Here’s Olson on the issue:

As for me, I take a hybrid position somewhere between Cheney and Olson. I agree that the Equal Protection Clause compels the conclusion that marriage is a fundamental right that must be extended to homosexuals. However, if gay marriage is imposed on all states simultaneously by judicial fiat, it will be social chaos for decades to come. If, on the other hand, the decision is left to the democratic process in the states, the result might take longer to achieve, but it will be accepted more quickly. In other words, if push comes to shove, I agree with Olson—but I don’t want pushing and shoving. I want real, genuine, broad-based acceptance of the right that can only be achieved through the democratic process.