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.

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 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.