Saturday, May 31st 2008
Alternate View on Gay Marriage
The recent ruling of the California Supreme Court has brought one big question to my mind: Why the heck is gay marriage even an issue? It makes no sense. With a tanking economy, a war to fight, and a pathetic public education system, the government and the American citizen body clearly have more important things to worry about. But here in California, according to a poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times, the sides are already polarizing and digging trenches for the coming battle over who gets to walk down that aisle to matrimony.
This divisive issue, however, should not even enter into the political arena. The job of the government is to assure the safety and liberty of its citizens, not to regulate each and every household in the United States. The government has no right to define marriage. Marriage is something to be defined within a religious context, and last I checked, this nation was pretty big on the separation of church and state. In order to alleviate this stress between the legal and religious definitions of “marriage,” I propose that in all government documents the word “marriage” be replaced with “domestic partnership” or some other neutral term. Don’t think of it as “politically correct terminology,” think of it as “finding the right phrase.” This would side-step the entire issue of the government having to take a stand on same-sex “marriage.” Everyone is happy unless you feel that the sanctity of your marriage has been “cheapened” because that word doesn’t appear on your tax papers. Don’t you have something better to whine about? Leave the term “marriage” to the various churches, temples, synagogues, and mosques of the world’s religions. It’s time to grow up, America, because the closet doors aren’t staying closed anymore.
That important point aside, it still does not remove the issue of standing up for equal marriage rights for as long as the government is concerned with the institution of marriage. Unless that is addressed, it seems like this alternate conception–is there anybody in the political system who is actually trying to implement this?–is a way of dodging the issue.
Comment by yaman — 5/31/2008 @ 11:08 pm
The reason gay marriage has the traction it has right now is because of a cultural shift in what marriage actually is. The “marry who you love” formulation being pushed by gay marriage advocates is a reflection of how marriage has changed in society, but at odds with the government’s approach to marriage, which doesn’t really have any reason to care anymore. If government is trailing culture, as seems to be the case here, then it should actually trail culture and do away with the idea altogether.
The issue of equal marriage rights can be approached either by calling everything marriage or calling nothing marriage. Advocating one over the other isn’t “dodging the issue” just because it doesn’t happen to be an answer to a question you were thinking of.
Comment by Justin! — 6/1/2008 @ 12:50 am
You’re absolutely right! Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For those who are uncomfortable with gay marriage check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com
Comment by Charlotte — 6/1/2008 @ 8:24 am
Gays have their own unfair privileges, such as “hate” laws. When those laws are struck from the books, I will cease opposing giving them marriage too.
Comment by Pete — 6/2/2008 @ 10:43 am
there’s a reason we have hate laws protecting gays, they have been systematically persecuted and discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. what you call “unfair” seems pretty laughable to me
Comment by yuri — 6/4/2008 @ 6:55 pm
Yuri, Bush has a hate law toward Al Kookoos. Because whites from European countries living here in the USA have been persecuted and discriminated against by their Muslim supremicist doctrine. It’s for White American Christian Protection — y’ll understand. What comes around goes around…
Comment by Anonymous — 6/4/2008 @ 7:46 pm
Marriage is between a man and a woman, and should always remain that way. Marriage does benefit society, because it it beneficial to the United States that we have a growing, or at least stable, birth rate. A man and a woman can produce children together, and hence their union–and the potential fruits of it–is a net plus to society. Thus, it is only logical that a man and a woman who decide to stay together for the purpose of reproducing and raising children receive benefits from the government. A man and a man, or a woman and a woman, cannot produce children together and therefore their union is not of benefit to society, which needs to maintain its birth rate. The birth rate would be declining and negative in the US (as in most of Europe) if it were not for immigration, much of which is illegal, so the best option for the US is to encourage reproduction in healthy, stable, optimal husband-wife marriages.
Comment by J — 6/6/2008 @ 1:11 am
If you have something to say, I won’t censor you.
Comment by Justin! — 6/7/2008 @ 3:07 pm
No wonder the Cal Patriot has gone downhill, with fascists like you Justin!.
[I seriously doubt that the sexual orientation of anonymous commenters being unknown is the cause for the Patriot going downhill. You’re free to believe that if you like, though. -Ed.]
Comment by honest question — 6/7/2008 @ 8:31 pm
This is an outrage. Ever heard of the First Amendment?
J is gay. And Justin! is retarded.
Comment by honest question — 6/7/2008 @ 10:32 pm
Homosexuals “marrying” is the most silly waste of time this Nation has ever suffered from. All the inevitable court battles rising out of this, the most stupid of all the non-issues ever to develop, will cost the tax-payer billions….!!!
Ultimately it will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court where laws allowing “gay” marriage will be struck down.
Some states, [CA, MA] have enough “gay” people to take over government institutions along with enough spineless liberals who let such take overs occur but the vast majority of Americans won’t tolerate such a disgusting travesty and mockery of an institution that has stood the test of time for many many centuries.
While California and Massachusetts make “laws” pertaining to “gay” marriage and the vast majority of people in those states are too intimidated to voice opinions opposing this silliness other states will most definitely NOT put up with it. The homosexuals will expect that they can go to CA get “married” and return to their home state expecting to be viewed as a “married Couple”. That won’t fly, and the whole thing will end up in court…and again ultimately the Supreme Court.
California can not make law for other states, which is precisely what “gays” in CA are hoping to do. Make “gay marriage” legal in CA, and via reciprocity the rest of the Nation will have to follow suit. Any marriage legal in California, “gay” or otherwise MUST be viewed as legal in all 50 states. Again, that won’t happen. So…the homosexuals can be “married” in CA, MA and perhaps one or two other states…but for the vast majority of the Country…they’ll be viewed as they’ve always been….just two homos living together….
Comment by Meme — 6/15/2008 @ 8:26 pm
i “love” how you put “gay” in quotes. but think of the bright side Meme, imagine the millions of tourism and wedding related dollars that will be a boon to Califonia’s economy. that is, if you are willing to accept “money” from “gay” people (it might be too “dirty” for you)
Comment by yuri — 6/16/2008 @ 12:32 am
“Marriage is something to be defined within a religious context, and last I checked, this nation was pretty big on the separation of church and state.”
No. Church doctrine demands that marriage must be a religious union. Last I checked, this nation was pretty big on the separation of church and state. The government is enforcing the separation by ignoring the religious argument that marriage must be religious.
Comment by matt — 6/17/2008 @ 6:23 am
I agree completely. It is antithetical to everything the small-government movement stands for to oppose marriage for certain segments of the population on the grounds of religion. Get the govt. out of that business altogether
Comment by An Alum — 6/26/2008 @ 11:25 am
How is opposing gay marraige antithetical to small-government conservatism? Gay marriage enjoys very little support (see DOMA acts both in President Clinton’s term and in the 11 states that voted in 2004).
Activist judges and anti-family radicals are joining up in an attempt to destroy the societal linchpin that is heterosexual monogomous marraige. Ruling of “rights by judical fiat” sure is something (tyrannical? undemocratic?), but it’s not conservative.
Comment by An Undergrad — 6/26/2008 @ 1:40 pm
We should fight against all challenges to marriage. Stop the gay, polygamist and Islamic assaults in their tracks!
Comment by A Conservative — 6/26/2008 @ 5:27 pm
An Alum -
I could just as easily say that it is antithetical to small-government principles to use the government to completely redefine the meaning of a term that, rightly or wrongly, has meant a certain thing for all of recorded human history.
Comment by Fullmer — 6/28/2008 @ 11:33 am
Fullmer, that’s only true if being “small government” necessarily means being conservative in maintaining traditional ways of doing things…it doesn’t. Conflating the two ideas is to, in reality, promote conservatism, not a smaller general role of the government.
Comment by Older than you — 7/6/2008 @ 7:31 pm
If the only reason for marriage is procreation, then shouldn’t we refuse women past menopause the right to marry? Shouldn’t men or women who aren’t fertile be denied the right?
Comment by Sherman — 7/7/2008 @ 11:36 am
I don’t need the government to difine for me that which is already in the dictionary. In my sense of the word: marriage is a union by God of a man and a woman. Instead of replacing the word marriage on my tax papers with “domestic partner,” as the writer proposes, I’d rather see the IRS burned and outlawed, never to return.
Everyone has the priviledge to obtain government marriage. We’ve jsut defined it as a man and a woman. It’s a special permit the gov. gives out, so it can give it to whomever We the People allow.
Instead of subjecting more people to government tyranny, i’d rather see the whole thing disappear as a State function. When did we become such slaves to the government that we needed them to tell us this sort of thing, anyway?
I don’t celebrate equality; I celebrate Liberty.
Never give the government more power. They have enough of it already.
Comment by Leave me alone. — 7/15/2008 @ 11:52 pm
I agree with Leave me alone. Gay marriage should be left in the hands of the people…but the whole “domestic partnership” just seems like some more frivolous unecessary actions.
I also think it interesting to say, that if one takes the Constitution to heart, and realizes that it is a living breathing document, then wouldn’t the Constitution support gay marraige. Wouldn’t the words, life, liberty, AND the pursuit of happiness include this…wouldn’t separate but equal being deemed unconstitutional also mean that by separating gay people and preventing them from getting married also be unconstitutional?
At any rate, marriage is something of the people, not of the federal government. Family and religious decisions are something of the people, not of the federal government. The moment we accept the federal government to nanny us in every personal aspect of our lives is the moment our liberties disappear. Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage, it is something that should be left completely out of politics.
Comment by Give me Liberty, or Give me Death — 7/29/2008 @ 5:19 pm