Diary

The Gay Marriage Debate

My views on Gay Marriage are somewhat contradictory to both conservative and liberal values. You might even accuse me of taking an easy-out to avoid answering the question.

However, my answer seems a bit simpler: The government has no business talking about marriage whatsoever.

“What??” you may ask..

Marriage is a sacrament of the Church. Many (Most? All?) religions have adopted the sacrament for their own followers – but in the end, marriage is a religious sacrament and ceremony that brings two people together as one in the eyes of the church and God (or god, with a little ‘g,’ depending on your faith).
As life continued along, the government began to officially recognize marriages in order to give husbands and wives legal footing when it comes to the business of your family. Without the government’s recognition of your marriage, we would essentially be two roommates that might have kids.

In one respect, it is extremely contradictory for the government to recognize marriages, as one of the major elements of the creation of our government was to keep the state independent of any church or religious affiliation in order to ensure all Americans get to maintain the religious freedom that was the reason our country was colonized in the 17th century.
That being said, there is no reason why the government should not sponsor or condone civil unions. There is nothing that says a civil union is anything less than a marriage, except the marriage is performed by the clergy whereas a civil union would be performed by a Justice of the Peace. Many of those opposed to the government calling marriage a union object because they feel it is taking away from their life arrangement. The only way that is really true is if they did not have a religious ceremony – if their marriage was performed in a civil ceremony. But then – what does it matter what name you put on it? It is still the same ceremony. If you want a marriage – go to a church and perform the sacrament.
The other objection is that people who got married in a church are going to wonder if the government will recognize their marriage for legal and governmental purpose. Of course it will: when you get married in a church, the officiant – the member of the clergy – that performs the ceremony fills out and files paperwork with the local county government to officially and legally join the two individuals together.

So, considering all the above rationale, the government has no business doing anything with marriage, regardless of the genders of the individuals. Further, marriage is something that is left to states to define and regulate and to the local counties to license and record. Why then would the federal government pass an amendment to define marriage as anything?

The government already has several forms of regulation to ensure the equality of Americans regardless of age, sex, race, ethnicity and, in more recently, sexual orientation. Thus, the government would be contradicting itself to ban gay marriage – or more appropriately, gay unions. If you want to allow gay marriage, you need to write a letter to the Pope. He is where that debate needs to start. Marriage is not something in which the government has any business.

Now – you have my view on the definitions of marriages and unions and where regulation should lie. What about amongst gays? Why not? Who is to say that gay people are not capable of having a loving and monogamous relationship and why should they not have the rights to take in the legal benefits of declaring they love another person enough to spend their life with that person and entrust everything in life with that person? I’ve seen some gay people that are better at that than many traditional, heterosexual couples.

What are your thoughts??