Senator Dan Swecker, an individual I have a lot of respect for, recently wrote an editorial to the Seattle Time defending the legislature's right to "protect marriage," and praising the State Supreme Court's recent decision that agrees this is a legislative issue. Although I agree with the Senator that the Court's decision to let the legislature legislate was the right one, this is where our agreement ends... This Republican supports marriage equality. I believe the Defense of Marriage Act does very little to actually "defend marriage."

Senator Swecker writes:

What is society's interest in defining traditional marriage? If we had no government institution called marriage, people would choose to live together based on their feelings for each other or for achieving some common purpose. We would soon recognize that only one type of relationship would rise to the level of critical government interest and concern -- that is the relationship between one man and one woman, because it has potential to produce offspring...

It is important not to change the focus of people entering into the marriage contract. This is not about feelings and it is not about the mutual benefit of the two parties. It is about the next generation. The best interest of children is to be raised by their biological mother and father. Society needs to do more to encourage moms and dads to stay together and make the sacrifices necessary to take care of kids.

This, IMO, violates the basic Republican principle that people can run their lives better than government. As Republicans we feel that government shouldn't regulate gun ownership based on our individual right to protect our families. We believe that government should not regulate the economy based on our individual right to be as successful as our merits will take us. We believe that government should not over tax based on our individual right to spend or invest our own money as we see fit. Ronald Reagan spoke of his belief that the human spirit will shine without an intrusive Federal government stomping it out. Yet, when it comes to marriage, many Republicans feel that without big government, the institution that I agree makes up the fabric of our society, will be a thing of the past. This is flawed logic. Individual liberty is bigger than government, and so is love. As long as nobody else is being harmed, neither should be regulated.

Swecker further argues:

The Netherlands' decision to sanction same-sex marriage comes amid the equalization of other types of relationships with marriage there. The Netherlands created "registered partnerships" in 1998, in some ways similar to Vermont's civil unions or California's domestic partnerships. A registered partnership, which is available to heterosexual and homosexual couples alike, is a contractual agreement between two people that provides many of the same benefits as marriage. During this time, there was a notable increase in marriage dissolution among heterosexual couples and even "flash annulments," in which a couple mutually decides to downgrade their marriage to a registered partnership and then terminates it, thus avoiding the complex divorce process.

Let's say what Swecker writes is true, although he fails to make the case by not providing an actual correlation between the two events, couldn't a lot of things be attributed to the rise in divorce rates in our own country? Experts say that alcoholism, long work hours, joining the military, cheating on your spouse, being complacent, and many other choices lead to high divorce rates in the United States. Yet, I don't see the Senator calling for a bill that mandates how many hours people work, or bans military recruitment, adultery, or alcohol. In fact, the only thing that isn't legal while American divorce rates drop, men marrying men and women marrying women, Swecker wants to stop. Why can't Steve marry Mark, yet Bill can cheat and stay married to Hillary? Who is Dan Swecker to tell us what sin is greater than another, and yes, I believe homosexuality is a sin.

Children are the future of any society. Although it may not be the only way, protecting traditional marriage is the best way we can take care of our kids.

Ah yes, the "it's for the kids" argument. What plea to the public would be complete without it? My only question would be, what about the gay kids or the kids raised by gays?

I DO agree with Senator Swecker that marriage is a good thing. My relationship with my wife is a big reason I am the man I am today. I believe there is a strong argument that marriage is best for kids, that it reduces sexual promiscuity and its consequences, that it overall strengthens our society... Why aren't homosexuals allowed to enter into that kind of relationship? Why wouldn't that be a plus rather than a minus? And what about the kid with a gay mom or dad? Why doesn't little Billy get to grow up in a safe, loving home with his two moms who are in a committed marriage? That is the kind of childhood I got with my mom and dad. That is the kind of childhood my son will have with my wife and I. Why shouldn't everyone get that same opportunity regardless of the sexual orientation of their parents?

I can't help but wonder that if Senator Swecker, who again I have an immense amount of respect for, abandoned his fears and looked at this issue logically, he wouldn't come to the same conclusion that I have.

Cross-posted on Seeing the Forest Through the Trees.