(My Clovis News Journal column for May 18, 2012)
Recently, gay marriage has been all over the news. First, North Carolina voters decided to define marriage in such a way as to prevent homosexual marriages (among others), and then President Obama went on the record in support of gay marriage.
Of all the things in life that should not be subject to majority opinion, or a vote, your own marriage is probably near the top of the list. That also means you shouldn't get to vote on anyone else's marriage, either.
And, honestly, Obama's opinions on anything hold about as much sway with me as the latest Hollywood actor's opinions on "climate change" or "gun control". He is welcome to his opinions and can make his own choices based on those opinions, but anyone who looks to him for validation really needs some self-confidence, and probably needs lessons in thinking rationally and independently.
No marriage needs government as one of the partners. If that were the case, every marriage would be polygamous since it would include, at a minimum, two individuals plus a government. Why beg for recognition from the state?
Early justifications for government involvement in marriage were usually based on keeping "races" from mixing. Since most people have matured beyond that ignorant excuse, why would anyone hang on to the backwards belief that we still need government sanction for our relationships? Why the desire to involve government at all? Once again it's a government "solution" to a government-created problem. People see others getting special benefits based upon their marital status, and want to be included. Understandable, but a clear case of needing to eliminate all the penalties for the unmarried individuals rather than finding more people to admit into the privileged club.
Even if you believe homosexuality to be immoral, that doesn't mean you should make it- or things based upon it- illegal. Educate, don't legislate. And if you think something is wrong to do, don't do it yourself. Other people's opinions differ from yours and your right to impose your opinions on anyone by force, in person or by proxy through The State, doesn't exist until they steal or physically attack.
Instead of fighting to be equally violated, homosexuals and heterosexuals should join forces by refusing to seek government permission to enter into a marriage with whoever they love. Get the state out of all marriages and the problem goes away immediately.
I have a sneaking suspicion that North Carolina voters just did more to promote acceptance of gay marriage than any other activists could have ever accomplished.
Of all the things in life that should not be subject to majority opinion, or a vote, your own marriage is probably near the top of the list. That also means you shouldn't get to vote on anyone else's marriage, either.
And, honestly, Obama's opinions on anything hold about as much sway with me as the latest Hollywood actor's opinions on "climate change" or "gun control". He is welcome to his opinions and can make his own choices based on those opinions, but anyone who looks to him for validation really needs some self-confidence, and probably needs lessons in thinking rationally and independently.
No marriage needs government as one of the partners. If that were the case, every marriage would be polygamous since it would include, at a minimum, two individuals plus a government. Why beg for recognition from the state?
Early justifications for government involvement in marriage were usually based on keeping "races" from mixing. Since most people have matured beyond that ignorant excuse, why would anyone hang on to the backwards belief that we still need government sanction for our relationships? Why the desire to involve government at all? Once again it's a government "solution" to a government-created problem. People see others getting special benefits based upon their marital status, and want to be included. Understandable, but a clear case of needing to eliminate all the penalties for the unmarried individuals rather than finding more people to admit into the privileged club.
Even if you believe homosexuality to be immoral, that doesn't mean you should make it- or things based upon it- illegal. Educate, don't legislate. And if you think something is wrong to do, don't do it yourself. Other people's opinions differ from yours and your right to impose your opinions on anyone by force, in person or by proxy through The State, doesn't exist until they steal or physically attack.
Instead of fighting to be equally violated, homosexuals and heterosexuals should join forces by refusing to seek government permission to enter into a marriage with whoever they love. Get the state out of all marriages and the problem goes away immediately.
I have a sneaking suspicion that North Carolina voters just did more to promote acceptance of gay marriage than any other activists could have ever accomplished.
.
(Also published at The Woodhull Alliance.)
.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteComments deleted because the commenter said this was the wrong post, and then posted the comment on the correct post. So it's all good.
ReplyDelete"And if you think something is wrong to do, don't do it yourself. Other people's opinions differ from yours and your right to impose your opinions on anyone by force, in person or by proxy through The State, doesn't exist until they steal or physically attack."
ReplyDeleteWhoa, dude, who are you to impose your opinion on me that stealing and physically attacking are wrong?!
Well, Gene, if you don't agree with that "opinion", then you won't mind me killing you when you try to attack or steal. It cuts both ways, and the bad guys lose either way.
ReplyDeleteAt least I will wait until you initiate force (or present a credible threat to do so) or steal before I unleash justice in your direction. Lots of others believe in pre-emptive strikes.