[backtothestreets]

I'm posting to this thread mostly out of frustration.

It seems ironic to me that "conservatives" want government to stop hounding religion, but make a 180 and want government to pass an amendment affecting marriage. It would seem more consistent to me to demand government get completely out of the marriage business. The original civil unions conducted by a Justice of the Peace (or other government official) were a result of liberal legislation in its time. Prior to the government entry into the marriage, it was a religious matter.

The government participation has been around so long that most people believe it is as it should be. Personally, I believe it is never too late to undo liberal legislation, which in this instance would take government completely out of marriage and a religious matters, and not require an amendment.

If some churches what to conduct same-sex marriages, they will also be signing their eventual death warrant as their membership will dwindle.

Asking government to pass an amendment on what was once a strictly religious matter is an invitation for later generations to pass other amendments affecting other religious matters, and that could go any direction, good or bad, but I instinctively think bad.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

I'm not asking government do to anything. If a state legislature wants to permit gay marriage, that's its right. I just want courts to stop legislating.

[clueless123]

I am afraid that I must respectfully disagree with you.

The aim of government is or should be the furtherance of the common good. Homosexual anything is an ABBERATION, repeat, ABBERATION and not in the interests of the common good. Because of this, the government should legislate against same-sex marriage, unions, etc.

Also, maybe I am just dense but how in the world whould it be even theoretically possible for the government to "get completely out of the marriage business"?

[tflabo]

"It seems ironic to me that "conservatives" want government to stop hounding religion, but make a 180 and want government to pass an amendment affecting marriage."

Good point however the tyrant judges who 'legislate from the bench' often overthrow the will of the people and legislatures by overthrowing the ban against Gay marriage.
So thats why we NEED the Amendment since the judicial branch diverts the will of the voters on this issue.

[moneyrunner]

Your attitude is what dooms Libertarians to irrelevancy. It is simply silly to suggest that government “get out of the marriage business.” Government has been in the “marriage business” ever since there have been governments. The reasons are numerous but they include the desire for the people to have “official” sanctions for their unions even if they are not religious, the desire for rules regarding inheritance, the desire for rules regarding governmental and private benefits provided to families, just to name a few.

Now it may seem to you that private contracts are a perfect substitute, but your fellow citizens don’t agree. And in a representative republic, the will of your fellow citizens will carry the day. Just as we could disband the military and hire their function out, sell the roads to private corporations and let them charge tolls, privatize schools (something I support), abolish all environmental laws, sell the national parks, turn tax collection over to private parties (done during Roman times) and abolish the Federal Reserve and go back to gold and silver coinage.

Bill Buckley once proposed selling the nation’s lighthouses and letting insurance companies be responsible for navigation aids.

But getting the government out of the marriage business is not Libertarian, it’s just silly. Since government is in the marriage business, the rules should be established by the people, not a court systems that seems to want to have the last say on every facet of our lives.

[LexBaird]

Prior to the government entry into the marriage, it was a religious matter.

Nonsense. Marriage has had societal implications beyond the religious aspect for eons. Marriage is about providing the most advantageous environment in which to foster the next generation of humans. Marriage is the institution that gives males the societal guarantee that the offspring they raise are theirs. Marriage is what has allowed females to spend their pregnancy and early child rearing years in an environment where her total support isn't Dependant on herself.

It wasn't until the advent of America, however, that there was much of a distinction made between religion and government. In some places, they were the two branches, with secular and ecclesiastical courts. In others, the religious hierarchy was the government.

[Paloma_55]

The difference between a conservative and a libertarian often comes on the social issues.

Conservatives recognize that there is a need for government in the social space. Libertarians are anti-government period.

I have heard libertarians say that if a guy falls off his motorcyle and is lying without a helmet, people should just walk/drive by..that they have no obligation to help him. Sorry, I am anti-government, but not to the point that I think we should leave each other to die.

Marriage is an institution that SUPPORTS society and this is why it receives government sanction. There are plenty of things that support society, but marriage is fundamental.

Conservatives are not asking for government to get MORE involved with marriage, but rather, to stay away from it and leave it as it... between a man and woman as has been demonstrated to be SUPPORTIVE of society.

Denmark and other countries have gone with homosexual marriage and what they find is that marriage and the family breaks down. When marriage is opened up to include anything that someone might imagine, it loses its value. This is why people in Denmark are going away from marriage, shacking up, and having illegitimate children. Just watch as the Danish society continues to spiral into the depths.

[newzjunkey]

Gov't should get out of the "sanctity of marriage" business. That belongs to religion (thus the use of "sanctity").

All a gov't needs is "civil unions" for all parties to ensure when death or divorce occurs there is a clearly established date of contract.

Gov't should be agnostic when conferring its legal protections on consenting adults.

[DJ MacWoW]

It seems ironic to me that "conservatives" want government to stop hounding religion, but make a 180 and want government to pass an amendment affecting marriage.

That's because states have voted down "gay" marriage and liberal judges block the outcome. If liberals can't get deviant behaviour measures passed by state legislation or the ballot box, they just go to activist courts to block the will of the people.

[DBeers]

I'm posting to this thread mostly out of frustration.

You argue ideology against what is a rationally based institution... The same argument could be used against any number of socially agreed upon mandates e.g. public funding of public education or foster care of children.

Government is simply carrying out the wishes of society. In reality you argue against society and for anarchy and as such will remain frustrated as long as you are an unwilling member of a society you disagree with...