The Conservative Argument FOR Same Sex Marriage

With California's prop 8 being challenged, I thought I would outline an argument for conservatives that would support Same Sex Marriage. That's right, I said supporting. For a conservative, there are actually good reasons that SSM should be accepted.

First, married couples live longer and healthier lives. Studies have show that people in stable relationships are happier and more content than their single counterparts. If you forget the fact that these individuals are of the same sex, approach it from a fiscal conservative side. You want people to prosper so that society doesn't have to shell out cash for supporting or incarcerating them. In other words, SSM is cheaper than the alternative.

Second, removing freedom is not small government conservatism. Creating rules to enforce undesired criminal behaviors is justified. Doing the same to enforce moral codes is fascist (Think Mussolini). Enforcing morality is the purpose of Islamic Sharia law. If you think that Christian moral codes are somehow different than Islamic, think again. Both are Abrahamic religions and share the same origins. The reason their societies seem brutal is BECAUSE they enforce old testament beliefs.

Third, it doesn't harm marriage. The argument that it leads to the individuals marrying animals or trees is ridiculous on it's face. Marriage is a contract. Plants and animals cannot legally give consent to marriage, thus it can't happen. Therefore, existing laws protect us from this possibility and no additional laws are needed.

The conservative case for SSM is quite strong. The opposition however, is rooted in the same tired religious arguments that opposed civil rights and women's suffrage. We all know how those turned out.

The Purveyors of Cyberjustice

It's official. Anonymous has declared war on Australia. Is the outback ready for the Internet's grand legion of cellar dwellers at 4chan? This isn't the first time Anonymous has taken up a cause, and probably not the last. What is interesting is that random, interconnected groups of people are pooling resources and causing havoc for a cause. Vigilante justice isn't unusual and is older than governments themselves. Which leads one to an interesting thought experiment. On the Internet we see virtual versions of the constructs that are part of our corporeal life; Communication, Gaming, Dating, Sex, etc. It's a wild west with no form of control or authority and it works pretty well. And now we have Anonymous. Could we be seeing a form of organization emerging from the chaos? The beginning of a permanent anarchical justice force, perhaps?

In the case of 4chan, there is an urge to do something bigger than themselves, either due to outrage or just for the lulz. I have no doubt that in the old west some people joined in on posses for the kicks. And we see that here. Like so many things, the beginnings are a little raw. But through this constructive chaos could we see something bigger than the sum of it's parts? Several years ago a company created a anti-spam concept called “Blue Frog” that used the power of the Internet collective to rain terror on spammers. It worked for a while, until the company came under attack and folded. The weakness with Blue Frog wasn't the idea. It was the centralized command and control of that managing organization. But Anonymous doesn't suffer from this limitation. It is a swarm and essentially headless. And capable of instantly responding when attacked. Spammers and malware authors have the edge in lead time compared to our justice system which is used to prosecute them. Anonymous doesn't suffer this limitation.

There may be a role for Internet justice in the future. Whether it involves Anonymous is an open question.