Thursday, November 20, 2008

I do not support a religion-centered state, although I do endorse a state that mirrors and pays minimal homage to the common cultural and spiritual heritages that bind a population into a people. If Christmas can be a federal holiday on the basis of tradition, then marriages can be regulated according to gender for the same reason.
It is not too much to ask of an Asian,African,Arab or other kind of immigrant to follow our rather secularized marital laws while maintaining their own religious traditions privately.
We have limits here based upon age, blood relation and polygamy that others can equally claim violate their most basic rights. A restriction of the gender make-up of a marriage is no different.

Civil marriage is a compact between the couple that wishes to be joined as one, and the society that is willing to recognise this union and grant it's minimal approval and whatever benefits may be forthcoming.
In a democratic society, it is imperative that the society decides these things.
It is for this reason that I support the voters of California,Arizona and where ever else they recently voted against approving same sex marriage.
If the voting had gone the other way, I would still support the outcome as the desire and will of a democratic populace.

(That said, I think the time is overdue for American society to re-examine some of the traditions regarding civil marriage and just do what we've nearly already done: eliminate it. Marriage laws were originally based upon presumptions and assumptions as to the bearing and raising of children within a lifelong bond.
Those days are over. The divorce rate is through the roof, and with 'No Fault' divorce laws the 'sanctity of marriage' is merely a phrase in search of a meaning.)

Either for or against, this is not a role for judges to interject themselves into once again.

Free people have the right to enter into any covenants they so desire, with whomever they desire.
But nobody in a free society has the right to demand benefits and blessings from those who do not wish to bestow them.

It is for this reasoning that I think the arguments and court challenges and the claims of civil rights bullshit on the part of gay marriage proponents are wrong. If you want to be married, make a vow, and consider yourself so. And leave the unwilling out of it.

4 comments:

Vanesa Littlecrow W. said...

Gino, as a gay atheist who believes in democracy, I salute you. Excellent post.

kr said...

Civil marriage was always an error. Civil partnerships or other unions make sense, but "marriage" implies a life long bond that the law has, properly, nothing to do with.

Tracy said...

As a white, Christian, freedom loving, left handed something or other I'm right on board with you.

Once the health limitations are established it's difficult to understand why the state needs to intervene beyond making sure no one goes into it by force...except for maybe the very rare prearranged gay weddings...ha ha ha. Crap I'm tired. Too tired to say much more than I agree.

Hope you're on the road to recovery my friend.

Guitarman said...

When you're king you can issue an edict on this. That's the only way it will ever happen. I agree that a marriage 'doesn't have to' have the paper and the states approval. But I'm not foolish enough to think of what we might turn it into if we didn't have boundaries.