How is government going to be less intrusive by saying that the people have no right to representation on the issue of marriage?
Do you think that all of sudden lawsuits are going to stop against anyone who doesn’t agree with the open expression of homosexuality in society?
Do you think that government run schools will stop being a target for homosexual activism? Do you think that Hollyweird and the media will just stop promoting it as well?
Either ‘We the People’ have a right to define marriage for society as being only between one man and one woman or else we don’t and the leftwing will define it through the Courts by continually suing anyone who disagrees. This is a battle that we either win or lose. There is no compromise.
I haven’t decided on all of your questions, and I never claimed that this proposal will make government less intrusive, or that it will stop lawsuits against those of us who believe homosexuality is wrong.
But I don’t think that our side winning the “definition of marriage” debate will accomplish those things, either. My point is simply that our society let the marriage cat out of the bag over 50 years ago when it accepted easy divorce, and that perhaps it’s time to think of another strategy for getting it back in.
I think we need to consider using the momentum of the pro-homosexual crowd against them, in a legal jujitsu move. They always say that government should stay out of the bedroom, and they have a valid point. My employer, for example, by offering domestic partners the right to health insurance, requires the employee to certify that they are gay. Why should employers care whether or not two people living together are having sex?
Would it really be an attack against the family to allow two heterosexual men sharing an apartment to have the same benefit? Or to allow a man and his wife who are living with and supporting his aged mother to include her in his health insurance policy? Or to allow two elderly friends who share a house for the companionship and economy of the situation, to pay taxes together as a domestic partnership? That is what they are, after all... domestic partners.
The effect of this hypothetical new arrangement on children would be no worse than the family law we already have.
You see, by using the momentum of the pro-homosexual “marriage” crowd we may actually be able to help solve other legitimate societal problems in a way that defuses the situation, and perhaps allow us to focus some of our energy on building up marriage in a spiritual and religious sense, which is the only way our current situation will eventually be reversed.
Then, marriage becomes a religious issue for churches and synagogues to decide, and the state no longer can intrude into religion, at least over this issue.
And there really is another issue here: freedom of religion. It is well known that some well recognized religions accept polygamy. Is it constitutional to prohibit them from practicing their religion in this matter? I haven’t decided, personally, but it does give me pause.
I think that having domestic partnerships open to two or more people, without any implication of sexual activity between them, may be something that might, possibly, be helpful to society. That’s all I’m saying. I don’t think it’s such a crazy idea, and I don’t think we ought to dismiss it out of hand as an attack on the traditional family. It may, possibly, actually provide a legal structure that can benefit families.
I’m not convinced of all this myself. I’m just trying to work it all out, and I think that it’s something worth discussing in a calm, reasoned way, while being realistic about the state marriage, family life, and family law are already in.