I stand as a libertarian who cares about individual liberty.
I stand as a conservative who wants to preserve traditional values.
So how can I reconcile this when confronted with something like same-sex marriage? Simple. It is not about what goes on in the bedroom that concerns me. It is about free speech.
Consider a free society where people can live together, or get married however they wish. The government doesn't have anything to say about it. How can they? It's no one's business but the people involved. If you're gay and you "have a ceremony" and decide you're married, great. Go ahead. I don't care.
On the flip side, I can decide,"No, you don't fit my definition of marriage. So I'm not going to call you married." On the legal side, you can have all the legal contract benefits of a marriage and the tax status and all that. I don't think taxes should have anything to do with marriage either for that matter. But I can feel free to tell my kids that the couple over there are not really married.
Then the gay couple decides to get angry and demand,"How dare you say we're not married! We had a ceremony and a public declaration and everything. I demand an apology! And you need to tell your kids that we are really married."
Wait a minute. How did my telling my kids what I believed impact your life? When I refuse to do so, you decide to get a law passed or a judicial ruling to show everyone that you are really married. Uhm.. good for you?
I really don't care how you live your life. If you want to call yourselves married, go ahead. I'm not stopping you. And if through some twisted line of reasoning you want to say I'm not married, go ahead. I'm not going to get mad and tell you that I'll sue you if you don't agree with me. Yet the converse is not true.
In the end we discover that passing same sex marriage legislation and judicial rulings are not about personal liberty. It is about censoring a Christian's free speech. Before these rulings, a same sex couple could have all the same benefits as a married couple. While this was commonly called a civil union, there was no legal issue with a gay couple saying they were married. What was the punishment for such a crime? None.
But they wish to legislate respect (which cannot be done) and censor the free speech of a traditional Christian who does not believe that is a true marriage.
So don't buy into this argument about making them second class citizens or having the government intrude in the bedroom. That is only what is at the surface. But the bulk of the debate is about prioritizing gay rights above religious rights.
Fine, but remember all this:
"As a result of our discussions and other interactions with gay and lesbian voters across the state, I am more convinced than ever that as we seek to establish full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent,'' Romney wrote, referring to US Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. -1994 letter to Log Cabin Republicans [http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Massachusetts/Mi...]
“marriage is a state issue as you know – the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction.” –1994 Bay Windows interview [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/24/nh-gay-marriage-pus...]
2000-2002: As head of Salt Lake City Olympic Committee, Romney banned Boy Scouts from participating, due to their "discrimination" against gays.
“I feel that all people should be able to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.” -Romney, 07
2001 Called first citizens' petition to define marriage “too extreme” and “bigoted” because it banned civil unions.
The man is a charlatan and a RINO. Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil! There is only one real defender of life running for president this year: Virgil Goode