I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.- Thomas Jefferson.

debt clock

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Gay Marriage

Stop protesting the overturning of the Gay Marriage Bans in California and Iowa

Many of you are looking at this the wrong way. In fact, from a purely legal standpoint, there is no way you can ban Marriage between 2 men (or 2 women) using the 14th amendment as reference. We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic ; just because you or I don't like something, doesn't mean if we can garner enough votes, we can ban it or make it illegal. The California judge was absolutely right to rule against the Gay marriage ban. The problem was the attempt to ban "Marriage" and what the definition of marriage is. The argument needs to be that Govt has no business defining marriage in the first place.

All govt/legal references to marriage should be changed to civil union, to allow those visitation/power of atty/inheritance rights that Gays want, while allowing religious objectors to define marriage in their own religious terms. If Catholics or muslims wish to deny gay marriage official status within their religious dogma, so be it.

Remember that the hx of govt licensing of marriage and govt recognition of marriage was rooted in post civil war America, and the original purpose of requiring marriage licences was the prevention of inter-racial marriage. Now I do not equate "gay rights", in general, to black "civil rights", but in this respect, there is some correlation. That is why we need to remove the govt from this contentious issue.

This should be the offical Libertarian position on the issue (I don't know if it is.) -

Govt should recognize civil unions between any 2 consenting adults, and the legal ramifications that formerly applied to marriage. The term "Marriage" should have no govt definition and may be applied as any non-govt group or individual sees fit.

The fact that any individual has a sexual preference (gay, straight, appliantology, etc.) should confer no special status or protection, IMO, confering special victim rights. No-one HAS to engage in sexual behavior of any kind, engaging in sex is a choice. Asking for governmental approval of your sexual choice is silly, you silly goose!

No comments:

Post a Comment