Posted on 10/24/2012 11:24:21 AM PDT by rhema
The issue of whether Americans should approve "same-sex" marriage continues to be debated heatedly in the 2012 election cycle. President Obama has "evolved" on the issue to the place where he supports "same-sex" marriage, making no distinction between the time-honored institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman and a relationship between two people of the same sex.
The issue emerged recently in a September 20th debate in the U.S. senatorial contest in Virginia between George Allen (R) and Tim Kaine (D). Former Governor Kaine, when asked about the issue, couched his answer in terms of civil rights and equality, stating "that relationships should be treated equally."
Marriage has been defined in Western civilization for at least two millennia now as being a sexual relationship between one man and one woman. Christianity has defined it so historically, most often coupling it with life-long permanence and monogamy. As an Evangelical Christian, I certainly embrace that definition.
However, how do we deal with those who would choose to extend some of the legal privileges our society has accorded marriage to same-sex relationships without shattering the definition of marriage or discriminating against people outside the heterosexual definition of marriage? How do we protect society against those who would extend the special status of marriage to homosexual, lesbian or polygamous relationships? How do we protect time-honored titles, like "husband" and "wife," from being attacked as homophobic or sexist terms to be replaced by spouse #1 and spouse #2 or "Mom" and "Dad" from being reduced legally to caregiver #1 and caregiver #2? Such legal assaults on these time-honored family terms seem inevitable if "same-sex" marriage becomes equal with heterosexual marriage.
I propose that as Americans we declare heterosexual marriage as the only relationship in our society that is to be defined by its sexual nature and that it will continue to be defined as a legal relationship between one man and one woman consummated by sexual intercourse.
If two men or two women are living together in a relationship and they want to ask the state legislature in their state to grant some of the special legal privileges accorded marriage to their relationship the state legislature should respond in the following fashion: "We will consider your request, but the sexual nature of your relationship will be irrelevant to our discussions because marriage is the only relationship in our society that is defined by its sexual nature. Why should other people who are living in committed relationships that do not involve sexual activity be discriminated against or left out?"
In other words, the state legislature would not discriminate against two maiden or widowed sisters who were living together or a mother and a devoted son or daughter who were living together in a platonic relationship. Why should such households and relationships be left behind when legal privileges and recognition are being passed out just because they are not in a sexual relationship?
If the peoples' elected representatives in the various states were to undertake such legislation, it would certainly do much to protect marriage as the unique institution that it is in our society, while according all other relationships that equality that former Governor Kaine so desires.
Such response would be light years ahead of the muddle currently in the heads of the legislators, intimidated by homo thugs. However, there is one aspect missing.
True, two or more people should be able to grant one another any rights that they are in possession of. For example, they are automatic inheritance rights, hospital visits, medical care decisions, etc.
It is reasonable that they ask legal equality between various spacific instances of such union. For example, there is no reason to allow a gay couple to mutually granted rights and disallow two widowed sisters the same.
They cannot however demand that the state grants them privileges that the state chooses to grant properly married couples. Examples of such privileges are citizenship, taxation, adoption rights. That is because the heterosexual nature of the marital union is of a special value to the state, since in the event of children being produced or adopted by a married couple, the state has an interest in the children to be raised in a harmonious family, thus relieving the pressure on schools, juvenal law enforcement, etc. The state has no similar interest in non-sexual or homosexual or polygamous unions in the same way.
The demand of non-discrimination is valid between non-marital unions. It is not valid if a non-marital union is compared in privileges to marriage.
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
I think we are more in agreement than disagreement.
I agree that marriage (traditional marriage, not homosexual “marriage”) is a benefit to society. Strong families are a benefit to society.
The problem comes in whenever government inserts itself into something and tries to tinker with it. And that is what we have now.
For thousands of years people have understood what marriage is. But now, democrats see that as an opportunity to get votes, and to line their own pockets. If they can “redefine” marriage, they can use it to pit one group against another. I will also bet that the vast majority of divorce lawyers (who profit very handsomely) are democrats.
The government corrupts and taints nearly everything it touches and marriage is no exception.
I’m not against marriage. Just the opposite. I am very pro-marriage. I’m just against government meddling with it. For me, personally, it is a covenant involving a man, a woman, and God. (I still recognize a heterosexual, but non-religious, union as a marriage in the societal sense, but obviously not in the religious sense. JMO)
As things stand now, the government acts as if they “own” marriage. They have the right to define it. They have the right to tax it. They have the right to manipulate it to do whatever suits them. That is what I tried to express in my post.
My goal was not to antagonize anyone, certainly not to disparage marriage. I hoped to throw out some ideas and make people think a little about how this is one more area where we are giving up our liberty and freedom by letting the government meddle where they don’t belong. If this were the America of our Founding Fathers, I wouldn’t be worrying about government meddling. But we have been corrupted and taken over by non-benevolent, anti-family, anti-marriage “rulers.” The less they have to say about our personal lives, the better. JMO
How do you protect marriage and keep it as it is, if you don’t?
If there is no definition of marriage, then there isn’t any such thing and the word means everything and nothing.
A church can’t define it because in modern America there is no church. Atheists, Muslims, Mormons, Christians, “the Church of Gay Polygamy”, and the “Church of True Animal Lovers” can make their own rules, so we end up with no such thing as “marriage”.
except that things liek taxes and benefits are involved here.
Also I remember talking to a libertarian about marriage and he said the said crap of Govt should not be involved and then wanted all sorts of marriage, father daughter, under age marriage etc.
That no Govt crap now tends to make me think that it’s a cover to have their perverted sick marriage.
Once marriage is changed then no one should be surprised when all sorts of marriage is wanted and maybe made law.
Good point (and one that can't be emulated via contact law).
The fallacy of that “granted privileges” argument is that it depends on the premise that the people are there to serve the interest of the state rather than vice versa.
BIOLOGY
It should be what your Religion says it is. The government should be no part of it.
I married a woman and will spend the rest of my life with her. This was our choice by our Religious tenets.
We would have done this regardless of government. As it should be.
No, not at all. The state definitely can grant a privilege that one does not possess intrinsically, usually to do with the operation of the state itself. I enumerated them: a privilege to adopt a child who is a ward of the state, or to gain a citizenship. None of these are intrinsic rights. It does not mean I serve the state, merely that I do not wholly control its laws.
Of course it does. If the state privileges Joe Blow over John Doe because Blow serves its interests better, the state is at its root totalitarian, elevating itself above the people.
No, it is then simply a state giving on its own recognition things that belong to it. It would be socialist if it were giving away things that did not belong to the state but rather belonged to private citizens. It would be totalitarian if it prevented execution of individual rights altogether. None of that necessarily occurs when the state is giving a privilege of citizenship or adoption of a child who already is a ward of the state to whoever the state pleases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.