Dear Editor:

(In response to the Nov. 20 editorial, “Marriage: Untying the political knot”)

Alex Fournet’s column in the Nov. 20 issue of The Maroon argues that he and droves of other young voters would join the ranks of the Republican Party if it gives up on supporting a traditional definition of marriage and instead backs same-sex marriage.

But even if the GOP could gain some young voters this way, it would turn off many other voters. A majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. As proof, look to California and Maine, two of the more liberal states, where voters recently blocked a same-sex marriage bill.

You suggest that Republican party leaders are in the minority because they are obsessed with gay marriage, whereas most Republican voters want to focus on fiscal issues. But the recent special election in New York’s congressional 23rd district belies this.

 GOP party leaders chose a social liberal to run against the Democrat. The base revolted and instead backed the Conservative Party candidate, who opposes same-sex marriage. The pro-gay marriage candidate chosen by party leaders received only 6 percent of the final vote after dropping out of the race.

You also argue that the GOP stance on same-sex marriage is hypocritical because Republicans claim to favor smaller government. But enacting governmental protections for traditional values has been a GOP tenant since at least as far back as Nixon, and a significant portion of the GOP base is composed of religious voters who are motivated by moral concerns.

The idea that government has no business “in the bedroom” is a specious argument. How about if an uncle has incest with his niece in a bedroom? How about kids doing heroin in a bedroom?
Anyway, most Republicans are not concerned with what gay people do in the bedroom; they are concerned about what judges do in the courthouse.

They are also wary about the broader effects that changing the definition of marriage would have on our culture. Ten years ago almost no one peddled the idea that the government should not involve itself in marriage.

Now, solely because of the gay marriage movement, it’s become a common mantra. But the reason why governments recognize marriage is because, as a matter of public policy, traditional marriage between a man and woman is seen as beneficial to society as a whole — as creating the best environment for bringing up future generations, not because it’s an individual right.

I think the Republican Party would be smart, on strategic and philosophical grounds, to continue to oppose same-sex marriage.

Sincerely,

Conor Dickinson
[email protected]