A post in which I alienate the left and the right

A couple days ago I read some highlights from the 6th Circuit Court ruling affirming state bans on same sex marriage.

I can't even begin to explain all the complex thoughts this reading has brought to my mind the past few days. In an attempt to keep things concise, I may just end up writing four different posts. One on regulation of human behavior, another on government's need to balance justice and mercy, another on the failed logic of our modern conservative movement, and yet another on all the morals that are tied directly to the regulation of marriage (divorce, abortion, adoption, father's rights, etc -- because to me all those issues are related to the court's ruling). Maybe I'm just 8 months pregnant, but really the comments in the ruling have made my brain jump all over the place.

How about we start by highlighting part of what I read, and found so intriguing:

“One starts from the premise that governments got into the business of defining marriage, and remain in the business of defining marriage, not to regulate love but to regulate sex, most especially the intended and unintended effects of male-female intercourse. Imagine a society without marriage. It does not take long to envision problems that might result from an absence of rules about how to handle the natural effects of male-female intercourse: children.

Once one accepts a need to establish such ground rules, and most especially a need to create stable family units for the planned and unplanned creation of children, one can well appreciate why the citizenry would think that a reasonable first concern of any society is the need to regulate male-female relationships and the unique procreative possibilities of them …  It is not society’s laws or for that matter any one religion’s laws, but nature’s laws (that men and women complement each other biologically), that created the policy imperative."

This is, without question, the most reasonable argument for same-sex marriage I have ever come across. Just a month or two ago I thought of writing a post on the premise that there is no constitutional evidence for banning same-sex marriage (I still think that). The essence of my post was going to defend opposite sex marriage solely on an understanding of the after life (because that is the best way to defend it). However, the passage above does make a valid argument for government regulation of marriage: the regulation of sex. 

And it is a very conservative stance to take. 

You know, regulation. 

And Conservative. 

The two go together well, right? (please picture my snarky smile as I type that).

Here's the thing, I'm too conservative for liberals. I do believe the government has a responsibility to regulate human behavior. But somehow that very same belief makes me too liberal for conservatives. I don't limit my regulation of human behavior to sex, drugs, and violence. My ideal regulation of human behavior extends to the market -- where greed, dishonesty, and labor abuse are all thriving. My belief in market regulations certainly stretches into the insurance industry (and I can't ignore campaign finance).

My belief in a government that honors high moral living through regulations on sex, drugs, and violence (through the heavy hand of justice) also honors high moral living by offering affordable, quality education and health care to every citizen (the beautiful balance of mercy). 

I'll never understand how people fight for human regulations on sex, drugs and violence but ignore them in the market place. I'll never understand how people fight for a morally conscience government that upholds opposite sex marriage while depriving millions basic health care benefits.