Same-sex marriage

If a man and a woman, or two guys, or two gals desire to bind themselves contractually to what the state calls a "marriage," then what's a good ol' fashioned American conservative to say?

You could say "shame." You could say "hallelujah." Or you could do a Star Trek/Mr. Spock kind of thing -- raise one eyebrow, and say "interesting."

But the one thing my fellow conservatives should never say is ... "no."

Here's why:

There are two kinds of marriages. One is simply a legal contract sanctioned by the state. It has benefits and obligations for the couple. Like a driver's license, a marriage license should be available to all, regardless of how the couple's plumbing matches up. It's only fair. It promotes better order in the hive, and extends the core American values of life and liberty for all, which are as conservative an American ideal as apple pie.

The other marriage is a religious act. Some faith groups bless the marriage of couples, gay or straight. Some do not, sanctioning only the marriage between a man and woman. It is in this coexistence of faiths, especially when opposed to popular secular conceits of the day, that the American experience is made beautiful.

As America leans further toward the secular progressive left in the Age of Obama, demanding political correctness uber alles, it is more important than ever for conservatives to call religious diversity by its rightful name: Tolerance.

The most recent illustration of left-wing religious bigotry burst forth at the Miss USA beauty pageant on the Las Vegas Strip a few weeks back. Miss California Carrie Prejean expressed her religious convictions in answering a question about same-sex marriages from gay celebrity judge Perez Hilton.

Perez: "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?"

Prejean: "Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what? In my country, and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think that it should be -- between a man and a woman. Thank you."

Miss California (not surprisingly) lost the pageant and judge Hilton explained why:

"She lost, not because she doesn't believe in gay marriage, Miss California lost because she's a dumb bitch, OK? ... Miss California, with half a brain, I would have said: 'Hmm, Perez, that's a great question. That's a very hot topic in our country right now, and I think that that is a question that each state should decide for themselves, because that's how our forefathers designed our government, you know. The states rule themselves, and then there's certain laws, which are federal.' "

Perez Hilton, the constitutional scholar that he is, must have missed the part of the founding document that talks about freedom of religion.

Otherwise, he might have refrained from calling a young woman a "B" for expressing a faith and world view that differs from his.

For conservatives, the fight should not be about who the state allows into a "marriage" contract. The principle that requires defending is freedom of religion.

That fight's a-comin', and when it does, you don't want to be the right-wing version of Perez Hilton.

Sherman Frederick (sfrederick@reviewjournal.com) is publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.