Gay marriage, why does it matter?
The issue of “Gay Marriage” has been a hot one for years now and it would appear that the momentum among the political class is moving in favor of it. Regardless of the fact that the vast majority of the American people oppose it, more and more states are adopting it and when they don’t, the courts are imposing it. Opponents are frustrated and proponents are more brazen and militant.
Why does it matter? Because the government, state and federal, has attached benefits to “marriage”. Marriage has historically been defined as the permanent union of a man and a woman before God, irregardless of how God is defined or what religious tradition one adheres to. Therefore, historically, there is no such thing as “Gay Marriage” so advocates of such unions need to change the language and redefine the terms. Most of us resent this assault on our culture and what we believe is a foundational principle of a moral civilization.
The problem is this, marriage should have remained within the sphere of religion. There are vestiges of this within the Roman Catholic and Jewish traditions where they have held onto some authority to regulate marriage within their communities. Because the state has appropriated the regulation of marriage and divorce and attached benefits to it, now we have to consider the ramifications of the state appropriating our tax dollars and adopting regulations of our behavior in the context of this previously holy union.
The point is that if the government would stay out of the “bedroom”, and a lot of other areas, there would be no controversy. If marriage was left within the context of the various religious communities who would give benefits according to their ideals and the state had no role whatsoever in marriage, cohabitation or any other living situation, any debate would be confined to a particular religious community and any decisions would affect only those who have voluntarily joined that community. Would that be so different in these days when people live together outside of marriage in ever larger numbers? Things like survivor benefits, property division, hospital visitation and the like would be decided by insurance companies, lawyers and hospitals, not the government, and we would be free to choose which of those organizations/companies we did business with based on our living situation. But because the government makes these decisions for us, requires Social Security, gives tax breaks and regulates our behavior in this most intimate of relationships, the bedroom comes to Capitol Hill and the sides square off. If the government gets out of the business of taxing and regulating our behavior and conferring special rights on certain groups to the exclusion of others, we can go on with our lives unmolested and Washington can revert to a sleepy little town on the Potomac.
Why does it matter? Because the government, state and federal, has attached benefits to “marriage”. Marriage has historically been defined as the permanent union of a man and a woman before God, irregardless of how God is defined or what religious tradition one adheres to. Therefore, historically, there is no such thing as “Gay Marriage” so advocates of such unions need to change the language and redefine the terms. Most of us resent this assault on our culture and what we believe is a foundational principle of a moral civilization.
The problem is this, marriage should have remained within the sphere of religion. There are vestiges of this within the Roman Catholic and Jewish traditions where they have held onto some authority to regulate marriage within their communities. Because the state has appropriated the regulation of marriage and divorce and attached benefits to it, now we have to consider the ramifications of the state appropriating our tax dollars and adopting regulations of our behavior in the context of this previously holy union.
The point is that if the government would stay out of the “bedroom”, and a lot of other areas, there would be no controversy. If marriage was left within the context of the various religious communities who would give benefits according to their ideals and the state had no role whatsoever in marriage, cohabitation or any other living situation, any debate would be confined to a particular religious community and any decisions would affect only those who have voluntarily joined that community. Would that be so different in these days when people live together outside of marriage in ever larger numbers? Things like survivor benefits, property division, hospital visitation and the like would be decided by insurance companies, lawyers and hospitals, not the government, and we would be free to choose which of those organizations/companies we did business with based on our living situation. But because the government makes these decisions for us, requires Social Security, gives tax breaks and regulates our behavior in this most intimate of relationships, the bedroom comes to Capitol Hill and the sides square off. If the government gets out of the business of taxing and regulating our behavior and conferring special rights on certain groups to the exclusion of others, we can go on with our lives unmolested and Washington can revert to a sleepy little town on the Potomac.
Comments