No hot, breaking news here. Just a couple thoughts on marriage and the essence of liberalism vs. conservatism that I've shared with friends recently. Whether or not they are worthy of wider readership is entirely up to you.
On marriage equity
The key flaw in all the arguments for defining marriage as a man and a woman (or, in Texas, a "natural" man and a "natural" woman) is that they claim to be protecting rights and institutions that are not being removed.
Nobody in favor of same-sex marriage is saying children may not have a mother and a father. Nobody in favor of same-sex marriage is saying women cannot marry men. No rights now conferred by our current system are being removed or curtailed by the allowance of same-sex marriage.
If nothing is under threat, then nothing can be protected by taking action. When nobody is shooting at you, body armor is just ugly and costly.
Like an unnecessary constitutional amendment.
On conservatism vs. liberalism
The following was inspired by a reading of Philip E Agre's essay "What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong With It?"
As I see it, the essential tradeoffs built into the two current leading schools of political thought in America (presently labeled conservative and liberal) are essentially these:
Conservative: Let's grant as much freedom and power as we can to those who succeed (often via enforcement of the status quo), since that will motivate us all to work harder and do better. If some people's lives are made miserable as a result of their failure to succeed, that's the responsibility of those who failed. It's called accountability.
Liberal: Let's make life as good as we can for those who have less than average (often via radical change), since by definition that is nearly half of us, and the rest are equipped to fend for themselves. If some people become lazy and unproductive as a result, that's an acceptable price to pay. It's called mercy.