I think there are a couple of things here: #1 - The religious side of this arguement often gets short shrift, and it is every bit as ignorant and discriminatory as thinking someone is a terrible person because they are homosexual. If God created everything, then he made man and women too didn't he? And the simple fact of the matter is that this is in many churches the foundation of an entire series of blessings. The ideal, as God made it, is a union between man and women. Marriage between two people based on love before God is one blessing. Children that result from this union are blessed both by the love of this marriage and the love of God in this marriage. Children are another blessing. It is also a blessing to raise ones children through time and trails in faith before God. Homosexuality misses a key point of this concept. No one doubts that there are homosexual couples out there that are filled with affection and love for one another. I have no doubt that this is indeed a great blessing. Its the next part that issues in a religious sense are created. How do homosexual couples have children? If they are lesbians, only one partner in this union is going to be part of the biological creation process in the resulting children. By definition, children come from outside the belssing of the marriage and love. That, in and of itself, is raises issues with 'adultry' (obviously not in a literal sense) etc. And gay men? They cannot procreate at all and are consighned to adoption or surrogat mothers. Obviously, the issues in terms of theological ideal become more complex. Again, I have no doubt that whatever the source of a homosexual couples children, that most love their children as fiercely as any other human being. However, I have yet to see homosexual advocating for marriage address these theological questions at all, much less allay them. The sharp calls of 'bigotry' in this case appear to be more than entrenched on both sides - and both sides are guilty of running rough shod over the legitimate concerns of the other here. #2 - marriage in a federal sense is not a religious concept - it is a legal benefit. Civil Union provide the same financial benefit as 'marriage' and I for one cannot understand why homosexuals would press for 'marriage' that is conveys all the same legal benefits of marriage. If indeed this is not about an agenda, then why are homosexuals hanging on for legal marriage rather than civil unions? If someone wants the religious concept of the blessing of religion, you still have to address the theological construct of a marriage between man and woman. Failing to do that, well, you achieve the victory of civil unions called marriage, but it is a hollow victory that fails to address the religious practices and beliefs that flow from marriage and extend into a life time of literal blessing. The government is not going to solve the theological issues here for homosexuals. They, not us, are going to have to address them in a manner that is convincing - and they are not doing that at all in most cases.
Why can't you just accept the fact that some people are different from you? And, to your broader point, civil union is not the same as lawful matrimony. I am actually a big fan of civil union--for ALL citizens. Marriage is a cultural institution and we citizens should never have allowed the government to co opt it in the first place. But since we have, the Constitution obliges us to apply the law equally. The solution? You want to be "married?" You go to your church, or go to Vegas, or dangle nude from a bungee cord with your betrothed while some officiant conducts a ceremony. You want to form the kind of financial and lawful interpersonal union as accorded by what is currently covered under government marriage? You go to the courthouse and file a civil union. Done. Move on. Live you life. Be happy. Let your neighbors do the same. Seriously, people it really shouldn't be this complicated.
No they do not. The USSC has already ruled that "separate but equal is inherently unequal." And you do not have a right to not be offended. Marriage is the "gold standard" of interpersonal relationships. Denying it to certain citizens while granting it to others is patently discriminatory and violates both the spirit and the letter of the law, specifically the 14th Amendment which guarantees you the right to equal protection under the law. Unfortunately, that law also protects those icky gays...
Fundamentally, marriage is a religious institution. As much as progressives would like it to not be so, historically it is so and the day to day references of "marriage" are in the spiritual sense and not the legal one. What does it mean to be legally married? It means you file your taxes differently and power of attorney switches. That is all a marriage is to government. However, that is not what marriage is to most people. A true Christian would never acknowledge a gay couple as married regardless of rather or not it is recognized by the state. With that said my personal opinion is that the state has has no business in the marriage game at all. A marriage licence is no sign of love needed for a true marriage and a true spiritual marriage has nothing to do with filing your taxes differently. There is really no reason for the government involved.
Frankly, even civil union is completely unnecessary. Every right, grant, and privilege currently accorded by government marriage or civil union could be just as easily accomplished through simple private contract. Go off and get "married" any way you choose (which is your right) and then sign the contract if you wish to form a financial and interpersonal union as well. It's up to you--as it should be as a free citizen of a free country. Or do we really just pay lip service to this whole "freedom" idea when it is convenient to our agendas? I say we ought to really mean it, eh?
I wish I could agree with you but I think you're wrong. Most Americans care far too much about what their neighbors are up to. It's really nobody's (*)(*)(*)(*) business.
If the tone and content of many of these threads is any indication, I couldn't disagree with you more.
Indeed. The good folks in Salt Lake spent FORTY MILLION (tax-subsidized no less) MILLION DOLLARS to work toward the denial of our fellow citizens constitutional rights to equal protection and legal parity. If that gleaming temple were to burn to the ground tomorrow, it would not be too soon.
Sir/Ma'am, I would like to shake your hand. You have just illustrated precisely the kind of objectivity that we generally lack as a species and that we could all do well to learn. You recognize that not everyone is just like you and that in order for us to live alongside one another in a society, we MUST, absolutely MUST recognize that everyone get s to make their own way as we complete this journey called life--if we want to be free, anyway. Really really great post and I can not say how much I truly appreciate your objectivity and thoughtfulness. Well done!
The gift that keeps on giving! What a breath of fresh air. People, this is worth reading again and again until you understand it: "they can do what they want it does not harm me in any way."
Hey Wolverine you're kind of taking your own thread off topic here, eh? We are discussing the contract or marriage as you astutely asserted. What gods love whom is irrelevant, eh?
Or maybe they want simple legal parity? Maybe they just want to enjoy the constitutional rights to which they are entitled. Have you considered that? How about we just get government out of the marriage business altogether? In my view, government should not be involved in a citizen's personal life to that extent. What do you think about that? Return the institution of marriage to the people and the problem is solved.
Well.. if God created man in His image, he must have created homosexuals too. Who are we to second guess God?
Not even remotely true. Lawful civil matrimony (ie "government marriage") is the gold standard of interpersonal relationships. It is nearly inviolate and even impenetrable by criminal courts in some cases. Denying this standard to some while granting it to others is a direct violation of the 14th Amendment. Solution: dissolve government marriage. How do you know this? Can you cite any data to support your assertion? Or are you just speculating? Well then that's your responsibility to teach them that. You are no victim if your fellow citizens merely enjoy their constitutional rights. I disagree with your viewpoint because I think it illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding the of mechanisms of freedom and the vigilance required to defend it. A wise man once said "be careful what you wish for... you might get it." No offense, but your point of view deserves to be attacked because--at least on this topic--it represents nothing more than warmed-over big government paternalism ("oh, please big government protect me and my grandchildren from the gays!") And yet you have the nerve to quote Reagan on the contraction of freedom--possibly the single greatest political quote in American history and you casually toss it around without even knowing what it means. You really don't get it, do you? Reagan is rolling in his grave at this point. Let me help you: think about the principle of "limited government." Think really hard. What conclusion do you draw? What should be the role of government if we want it "limited?"
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Government marriage is the gold standard to which civil union is the redheaded stepchild. It's called legal parity--something to which all citizens are entitled--even the icky ones we don't like. Let's just be true to our limited government principles and get Uncle Sam out of the marriage business altogether. Let him print the money, pave the roads, and defend the soil (thanks to people like yourself) and let us, the citizens, manage our own personal affairs. Pretty simple solution if you ask me? Do you see a problem there? Not being a homosexual, and guessing also that homosexuals are NOT a monolith and that if you asked a thousand of them, you'd probably get a thousand different answers, my guess is legal parity. But it's just a guess. However, my position on the topic is precisely one of legal parity--the government is not a allowed to discriminate on arbitrary criteria such as gender in the absence of some compelling state interest and I defy you (or anyone) to find one in this instance other than your agenda, which is to infuse your spiritual longings into our legislative diet for your own personal satisfaction. There is a reason Lady Justice wears the blindfold, however. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the civil contract called "marriage" by the government. Not my concern. I am only concerned with relationship of the citizen to his government. What you do in your church is none of my business--unless, of course, your church is a global sanctuary for pedophiles. Oh, I just had to, I really did.
Could not agree more. I am glad to see this viewpoint popping more frequently. I think we're onto something here...
But we're not talking about gods or a god named God. We are talking about legal contracts and the citizen's relationship to the state.
Civil unions give legal parity. Good idea. Let The People vote on it. Wait...we already did and the majority is against homosexual marriage...Oh well..so much for The People.
Absolutely not. They are "marriage light." They do not confer the same rights, grants, and privileges, and furthermore, are wholly unnecessary, as is government marriage. Nice try but you did not answer the question. Tell me why we shouldn't just get government out of the marriage business.
