[gridlock]

Andrew Sullivan has a point, but misses the larger point.

The government has no business promoting marriage for some and restricting it for others. Marriage between individuals is simply none of the government's business.

Where possible, government should be neutral on this issue of marriage. There should be no tax implications, for instance. Where neutrality is not socially beneficial, such as for the assignment of child custody, shared property, power-of-attorney, and the like, there should be a standard partnership regulation that is open to any two people who want it. This partnership would confer a series of rights and responsibilities on the people who enter into it, but it would not be a marriage.

Marriage would then be a matter for the individuals to decide. Many people would choose to get married in a church, as always. And churches would be free to restrict or permit access to their rites however they wish. The "rites" would not be a "right", since government would not be involved. Some people might choose to be "married" by their automobile mechanic on the beach, but people are going to do all sorts of wacky things, and there is no way the government is going to stop them.

It could be argued that by going to this type of arrangement, government would be abandoning any role in the promotion of marriage. But I would counter that the destructive power of government is far in excess of any capability for positive promotion. Government will not be able to avoid an ever expanding definition of marriage and will thus destroy the very institution it intends to promote.

The only way to save the institution of marriage is to separate it as much as possible from the government. This strikes me as being the proper conservative position. If this allows some homosexuals to gain the benefits of domestic partnership, I fail to see the harm in that.

[conserv13]

The government has no business promoting marriage for some and restricting it for others. Marriage between individuals is simply none of the government's business.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks.

[robertpaulsen]

"This strikes me as being the proper conservative position."

Getting the government out of marriage strikes me as the proper libertarian position.

Over the millennia, promoting, encouraging, and rewarding the traditional marriage of one man and one woman have proven to be the best way to maintain the society. All of a sudden this is no good?

"If this allows some homosexuals to gain the benefits of domestic partnership, I fail to see the harm in that."

What you fail to see is that recognizing "domestic partners" or even "homosexual marriage" is not the goal. The goal is to add legitimacy to that lifestyle choice. It's saying that we, as a society, make no distinction between the two. And that's not correct.

[headsonpikes]

Bump your worthy #7.

[CDHart]

"The only way to save the institution of marriage is to separate it as much as possible from the government."

Much as I hate to admit it, you're right. I believe that homosexuality is a sin, but it shouldn't be up to the government to bless or condemn it as long as individual rights are preserved.P>Carolyn