There has been some discussion on the idea of conservative support for homosexual marriage. The reason I believe such sentiment, although certainly not widespread, exists is the notion being “conservative” means living an Ozzie and Harriet lifestyle. (And its not just Huntsman who thinks this way, so does leftist Ted Rall and libertarian Justin Raimondo do too.)
Certainly “mainstreaming” homosexuality away from the gay pride parade image in has been a goal of said activists for many years whether through institutions like marriage (or the military for that matter). While that might be fine for them, it doesn’t do institution much good. Yes, many heterosexuals haven’t done the institution much good either but that’s besides the point.The question isn’t about lifestyles it’s about meaning. And if marriage is not about one thing, it becomes about everything and then it means nothing. A man marries his horse, marries his favorite ball team or marries his dead mother? Yes, very extreme examples but with western civilization coming to the conclusion than persons can marry regardless of biology because marriage is all about love, then the possibilities are out there for the crazy or the attention seeker to indulge in.
But what’s not crazy and what’s very real is marriage of men to multiple wives, men married to child brides or marriages prearraigned or the very old marrying the very young. These are common practices all throughout the world, primarily in non-Western cultures. When marriages can’t be a fixed thing and anything goes, then there’s nothing legally the state can do to prevent it, especially when latter cultures immigrate to the former. That should be the conservative view of marriage, not shoehorning couples into a televised fantasy of wedded bliss and family life.