IGF CultureWatch

Here's another conservative (or, in this case, neoconservative) case for gay marriage, from neocon Joshua Muravchik:

A substantial fraction of people feel carnal affinity exclusively or primarily with individuals of the same sex. Insofar as their sexuality is to be channeled it cannot be toward the goal of procreation. If society has a general interest in the constraint of the sexual instinct, then it has an interest in encouraging long-term monogamous relations regardless of whether one ostensible purpose is to bear offspring. ... The claim that we defend marriage by disallowing it to homosexuals is a non sequitur. Could it not equally be argued that we reaffirm the importance of marriage by making it available even to couples who have not traditionally had this opportunity?

And a libertarian argument (no talk here of "constraint of the sexual instinct") from Sheldon Richman:

Marriage has never been exclusively about procreation. If that were so, couples that were infertile, elderly, and uninterested in having children wouldn't have been allowed to get married. Many other values have been at the core of marriage: economic security, love and emotional fulfillment, and more.

Richman also takes on the objection that courts shouldn't overrule public referendums or legislatures, explaining:

It seem clear that if government exists, then there is nothing wrong with courts thwarting the public or the legislature when either oversteps the limits we hope are set for government and violates liberty.

Neo-cons and libertarians don't agree on much, so it's interesting to see these two finding their own way to argue in favor of same-sex marriage. In other words, marriage equality-it's not just for progressives.