He looks like an intern I hired last year.
A big goofy grin and shaggy hair, Oklahoma State Representative Mike Turner does not look like your typical stuffed-shirt politician. And the truth is, he may not be.
At 26 years old, he’s probably one of the youngest to serve in the Oklahoma State Legislature.
Now I don’t know much about Turner’s politics, although based on his website, it’s quite obvious he’s of the conservative brand. After a quick scan of his take on certain issues, it’s likely I probably agree with him on a number of things – particularly those associated with government spending, taxes and education. Although I haven’t really investigated this outside of the copy on his website.
In any event, I’m going to assume that we probably wouldn’t disagree on much in the way of limited government. But on social issues, I suspect we would be at odds.
That being said, Turner recently made headlines with a proposal that, while I believe is based on a less-than-honorable stance on gay marriage, makes sense.
I’ve never made it any secret that I fully support the rights of gay and lesbian Americans to marry. The fact that we even argue over whether or not gay or lesbian couples should have the right to marry is ludicrous. Who cares?
Well, apparently, a lot of folks.
So I won’t spend any time arguing that issue here. However, I would like to draw your attention to something the Mike Turner recently did that actually strikes a chord with me.
Now I know Turner is anti-gay marriage. I don’t know if he really cares one way or the other, or if he’s just trying to satisfy his constituents. Either way, this is an issue where we would certainly disagree.
However, last week Turner proposed having the state government no longer regulate marriage. He wants to do this to ensure that same-sex couples can’t get married in Oklahoma.
If he’s looking to hurt same-sex couples, I think that’s pretty crappy. It’s petty. But to be honest, I actually agree with his proposal.
I’m not sure I ever really understood why the government is involved in marriages anyway. Other than allowing the government yet one more opportunity to charge you for something that you have every right to do without the government’s consent, there doesn’t seem to be a rational argument for the government to be involved.
Ron Paul chimed in on this a few years ago saying:
“I think the government should just be out of it. I think it should be done by the church or private contract, and we shouldn’t have this argument. Who’s married and who isn’t married. I have my standards but I shouldn’t have to impose my standards on others. Other people have their standards and they have no rights to impose their marriage standards on me.”
I agree 100%.
Quite frankly, gay marriage would be a non-issue if the government had nothing to do with it.
Again, although I don’t necessarily find Turner’s take on gay marriage to be an honorable one, his solution does make sense – in an awkward way.
In other words, I don’t agree with making marriage illegal. The government shouldn’t be able to dictate whether or not two people can marry. But yes, I agree with taking the government out of the equation.
As Ron Paul suggested, marriage should be done by the church or private contract. This way, anyone can get married – gay or straight – and we wouldn’t have to waste one more penny debating this nonsense.
Just something to consider. Because it seems to me that if you truly value liberty and freedom for all Americans, then you should support any action that takes the government out of the marriage equation.