While visiting thundercake.com because the owner reviewed 3till7.net, I noticed a button linking to this petition, which I signed. I also added my own little button to the left column under ‘Support’.
Anyway, this prompted me to ask Trinity what her opinion on marriage is, if she thinks that there should be any amendment (nationally or in state constitutions) describing marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I decided to write up a summary of my opinion on the whole deal here.
I think there should be governmental control and regulation over unions between two people. Part of these unions should be the legal benefits and protection that being married gives. I don’t see that the government should have any say in who those two people are. That there is debate over a man marrying another man or a woman marrying another woman is extremely bizarre to me.
I discussed this with a friend of mine and she believed that marriage should be solely between a man and a woman, but that for gay couples there should be civil unions that have the same legal benefits as marriages. My big question there was, so the only difference between a “marriage” and a “civil union” is the terminology? It seems remarkably silly to be arguing semantics but it made me wonder if one of the problems people have with the idea of homosexuals getting “married” is that their unions will be referred to as “marriages.”
Another plausible reason that goes along with that idea is that the word “marriage” has religious connotations in the minds of many (most?) people in this country. By “religious” I’m mostly meaning “Christian” but it applies to other religions that view homosexual relations as wrong, too. I realize that the majority of this country identifies as Christian but I disagree with the fact that religious beliefs are crossing over into governmental rule. Just because some religions, even this country’s main religion, belief that homosexual relationships are immoral does not mean that our government should. I’m all for separation of church and state. The government should be entirely and indisputably neutral in terms of religion. Now, if complete separation from religious ideals is possible or not I don’t know, since, after all, the government is made up of individual people who may have religious beliefs deeply ingrained in them. I think it would be quite hard for everyone in the government to be completely objective and not let their religion influence their decisions and actions when doing governmental tasks.
Not to get “religion” and “morals” confused here: I firmly think that a person’s morals should influence their decisions and actions, just not that person’s religion. We vote for elected officials based upon the morals they have displayed, through actions and words, so that they might support things in the government that go along with those morals. Merriam-Webster defines “moral” as “of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior”. Belief in Jesus Christ is not a moral. Believing there is an afterlife is not a moral. Belief that there are no deities is not a moral. Rule by governmental figures based upon morals is good while rule by governmental figures based upon religious particulars is bad.
5 Comments
I hear a lot of people talking about the right of marriage. Who ever said marriage was a right? It’s not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Certainly the framers had no desire of making same-sex marriages or unions protected by the Constitution.
Of course I realize that rights are not protected or given by the government. And that just because it’s not mentioned in the Constitution doesn’t mean it isn’t a right. Just something to think about.
Ideally, marriage should be a state issue, as it has for the history of the republic. In fact, it is legal (or at least not strongly enforced) to practice Polygamy in some western states.
The problem is, we have a lot of judges who like to make laws from the bench. And say things like “If a same sex marriage is legal in one state, it is legal in all states.” This imposes the rule of one people over a different people who hold no political power in the former jurisdiction. This is bad.
This is why some federal amendment is needed. It should not define marriage as between a man and a woman (though states should be free to do so), but it should clarify that such arrangements are at the state level, and affect only the state which legislated them.
That, or marriage should be privitized. In other words, there is no legal status as marriage. People can get married in a Church if it makes them feel better, and people can live together however. People can start corporations or partnerships to obtain joint legal rights. No reason to call it something special.
I signed the Million For Marriage petition months ago, and have since received countless amounts of spam every bloody day. I asked not to be sent messages, and since have tried to cancel messages (even though I didn’t ask for them!) several times. I’m still getting spammed. Stupid site. *grumble*
I think gay people should be able to get married because they’re people too. Theyre just like people who are straight. Just because they have a different sexual prefrence doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the same rights as a straight person has.
Fight the good fight. =)
As a member of the general sexual minority it’s a big deal for me. I’ve covered this subject so extensively in my blog that it would seem redundant to repeat that all here, but I’m for marriage between two people, not genders. If the government amends the constitution with the express purpose of excluding a minority from a right, we might as well reinstitute slavery, or make Christianity the official religion. If I weren’t so dedicated to working to make this country better I’d move to canada right now before Bush can do anything else…
I can’t go past the third paragraph:
“I think there should be governmental control and regulation over unions between two people. Part of these unions should be the legal benefits and protection that being married gives. I don’t see that the government should have any say in who those two people are. That there is debate over a man marrying another man or a woman marrying another woman is extremely bizarre to me.”
We created government to create and enforce laws, and to adjudicate disputes based on those laws. It requires the power to tax in order to carry out its duties. As the supreme court has ruled, the power to tax is the power to destroy. This power also can be used to promote.
The tax laws are used to promote certain activities and conditions, such as charity and home ownership, and discourage others, such as smoking and hoarding of extreme wealth, in order to carry out its duty to “promote the general welfare” and “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”. Our government is prevented from taxing many things surrounding religion in order to prevent the creation of a state-sponsored religion. Review your history concerning the Church of England and religious persecution.
Marriage must be defined multiple ways, from multiple points of view. To those entering into marriage, it is a pledge of union. The basis of the union, anthropologically, is to ensure the survival of the species by providing basic needs throughout the long adolescence of the offspring. Culture, society and religion impose rules and strictures on such unions.
We have barred religious favoritism in our government (in our Constitution, at least, if not in practice). Therefore, our government must not consider religion when deciding how to treat marriages. The government’s interest in marriage is limited to the impact of marriage on the duties and responsibilities with which we have charged government. Those who favor using government to bar marriages that do not fit their religious beliefs are in actuality opposing our Constitution. They are promoting a theocracy and, unwittingly perhaps, being subversive.
The burden of providing for children over a long term causes parents to work toward long-term stability, safety and improvement in society. Note that these are the functions we have codified in the Constitution. Encouraging long-term committments for the purpose of rearing children therefore serves the interests of government and society. Government uses tax laws to encourage these committments.
Does society have any reason to encourage unions which are not for the purpose of child-rearing? Do such unions benefit society? Do they threaten society? If there are no benefits to society, why should society contribute pooled funds (tax revenues) to encourage them? If such unions threaten society, society has the right to self-defense and thus may discourage or ban such unions.
Any marriage which does not serve the interests of government, which are the interests of society, or which does not threaten society, is outside the province of government. Our government must not intrude on such unions based on religious beliefs nor based merely on majority opinion of such unions. It must not promote nor discourage without due cause.